Joker

Score:  A-

Directed by Todd Phillips
Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz
Running time: 122 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short: Joker is a film showcasing one of the comics' most famous villains, illustrating how he came to be.  Phoenix's interpretation of this old standby is a worthy addition, and he keeps you on edge the whole time.  Controversy has erupted over its violence and other themes, but I would argue it's earned a valid, thoughtful discussion of a variety of topics.  Be prepared, but also don't be afraid to give it a shot and decide for yourself.


In a small apartment lives Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) and his mother, Penny; he struggles to support them, working as a clown and dealing with multiple mental illnesses.  They are in Gotham City, a huge metropolis with soaring towers and larger-than-life figures, but also ubiquitous crime and poverty on the streets.  While Arthur and his mother laugh each night at the antics of TV hosts like Murray Franklin (De Niro), he finds a much tougher crowd in his clown makeup.  A tragic, violent encounter on the subway one night rips apart Fleck's tenuous status quo, and he begins to delve into his personal history just as wider events threaten to swallow him.

Joker has a small cast, and nearly every moment is focused on the infamous, titular comic book villain.  Joaquin Phoenix steps into the role this time, one that has seen a wide variety of actors and styles, from Cesar Romero to Jack Nicholson to Heath Ledger.  Phoenix's Joker is front and center, of course, and so it's the most well-developed look yet at this famous character; it's also an origin story and thus (mostly) pre-Clown Prince of Crime, Batman's archenemy.  Both physically and psychologically, Phoenix is disturbing yet spellbinding.  The tone of his voice makes him sound like a boy, and indeed he behaves childlike in most scenes, unsettling yet understandable due to his upbringing and mental problems.  Arthur is awkward in all social settings, only truly comfortable either with his mother or alone, where he often writhes and even dances, which Phoenix uses to show a certain release but also tangible sign (through his contorted physique) of long-term neglect.  One of the Joker's primary features, his laugh, is cleverly used as a manifestation of Fleck's illness, and Phoenix develops an effective one, at times innocent and pitiful, at others menacing and creepy.  Ultimately, Phoenix's Joker/Fleck is a perfect fit for this Gotham City, and his performance is one worthy of the full attention it receives in every frame.  De Niro has a small part, and one mostly at a distance, but he's a perfect fit as the idolized talk show host who also shows more underneath in a key scene.  Zazie Beetz brings her significant charisma with her to her role as Fleck's neighbor; another small part, yet still distinct and crucial to the film.  Frances Conroy and Brett Cullen are the other notable players, as Penny Fleck and Thomas Wayne, respectively, who do good work.

Joker is a contentious film, but also a highly thought-provoking one that's engrossing and well-made for the most part.  It's also, of course, a comic book adaptation, yet change some of the names here and it's really a fairly regular (if dark) thriller/character study.  The simple title is apt, because this really is all about Phoenix's Fleck.  We get a close, sometimes uncomfortably so, look at everything from his debilitating if unpredictable mental illness - including uncontrollable laughter (a stress response, it seems) and delusions - to his stressful, thankless day job as a clown (and his wary colleagues) and his evening routine with mother, seemingly unchanged over many years.  An eerie, effective score helps set the scene, too, building throughout the film.  Thanks to the city itself - which is really the co-star, in a way - the film gets narrative momentum before long, an inexorable yet often surprising and poignant journey for Fleck from a trampled nobody to his criminal destiny (ironically, revered by many).  The script is strong, much of which is captured in Fleck himself, but it also has a good flow and pacing.  The film effectively shows how the various aspects of Fleck's life - his comic aspirations, workplace, relationships - affect each other, and on top of that how key incidents change those directions subtly yet profoundly.  The comic book elements only gradually reveal themselves, and at times they are the film's clumsier moments.  Along with the psychological darkness, there is considerable physical violence.  While it makes a certain amount of sense in the context of the Joker character's history, it's obviously one of the most controversial elements; I can understand the concern over it, but most of it does at least fit appropriately in the story.  The ending is also debatable, one in which the film's restraint, which loosens along the way, breaks away completely and we get an outright horrifying vision that melds together the fate of Fleck and Gotham itself.  Wrapping things up yet representing just the beginning of a universe of comics lore, it's one that left me intrigued.

My thoughts in the week since seeing Joker have been drawn towards that path Fleck takes in becoming the Joker.  I think it's driven by a confluence of very real factors: his mental illnesses, his physical abuse as a child, and the wider society (which provides few opportunities to someone like Fleck, makes him vulnerable to random crime, and even cuts the few lifelines to treatment he depends on).  These are all distressingly realistic scenarios, ones which too many individuals face every day (obviously, in a wide variety of forms and degrees).  But this is all kindling, as bad as it has made life for Fleck.  It's the tragic coincidences and confrontations that truly turn that bad situation into an inferno.  And I don't mean to say that Arthur is innocent in all this, that he is merely a victim: he clearly makes not just wrong but evil decisions that are at least as important as those he can't control.  But a final aspect of his life that is essential to see is the lack of love and support in his life.  Without it, those crucial decisions he makes are based on knowing that he is truly alone - to fight for his own survival, to fight for revenge against his many (real and perceived) tormentors.  So as an origin story for the Joker character, it's a grim but appropriate tale.  We should be very careful, at the least, in applying anything from the film to the real world.  But I think it's important to be mindful of both the dangers and/or vulnerabilities of the above (mental illness, abuse, classism, racism) and to realize that we must love and respect one another to overcome these and other challenges.

***

Joker is one of the most hotly debated films of the year, as evidenced by a lukewarm 68% on Rotten Tomatoes, and more so by getting everything from the Venice Film Festival's Golden Lion award, to scathing critiques from leading social thinkers.  As you can probably tell, I found it a fascinating film, if nothing else (I definitely need to see it again, at least).  Well-made overall (particularly Phoenix's performance), and while it is troubling or questionable in some parts, it provides an in-depth origin story for one of pop culture's most famous villain's as well as taking an unsparing look at some very real-life issues.  Beyond discussion of the explosive themes, many critics point out similarities to Martin Scorcese films like Taxi Driver.  I haven't seen them, so I can't comment on comparisons, but it's yet more to be discussed.  I don't exactly want to see a lot more comic book/superhero movies in this particular style - but it's good to see a different take on one of my favorite genres.  I do encourage most audiences to give it a try; some will love it, some will hate it, but that's just one of the things I love about the movies!



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60399334

Brittany Runs a Marathon

Score:  A-

Directed by Paul Downs Colaizzo
Starring Jillian Bell, Michaela Watkins, Utkarsh Ambudkar, Lil Rel Howery
Running time: 103 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The title may capture the basics of this dramedy, but there's much more going on in this high-quality film.  Led by a great performance from Jillian Bell and a superb supporting cast, new filmmaker Colaizzo also pens a fantastic script to overcome a few newbie hiccups.  This is probably not what you're expecting, but it's for the better.  Highly recommended.


Brittany (Bell), in her late-twenties, finds herself adrift and growing - but in the wrong ways.  Her doctor warns her of the risks of not getting her weight under control, and so she grudgingly hits the streets of New York, if not at a brisk pace.  There she finds a whole new world of runners, from other aspirers like herself to the long-time enthusiasts like her seemingly-perfect neighbor, Catherine (Watkins).  As Brittany struggles to take control of her physical life, a domino effect of other changes begin in her life, and she relies on relationships both old - such as her close brother-in-law, Demetrius (Howery) - and new - such as slacker house-sitter, Jern (Ambudkar).  Despite her devotion, it's a hard road to travel, and the goal of transformation is hardly assured.

Brittany Runs a Marathon has an ecclectic yet excellent cast, led by its title character.  Jillian Bell, a notable but mostly peripheral up-and-comer, takes on the lead and breathes genuine, gripping, and sympathetic life into her ostensibly ordinary character.  Aided by a tremendous script, Bell avoids a minefield of cliches and other acting dangers to create a truly unique, believable character.  Cynical and jaded at the start due to the everyday ways others - and she herself - treat her, the inevitable turn toward improvement and self-respect comes in fits and starts.  Yes, she's funny, but it's not her dominant feature or strength; rather, it's her will power and quiet, steady persistence that shine through.  She is capable of lashing out at others - even friends - in ways that mirror her own wounds, yet Bell ultimately allows her deeper, less showy humanity win out.  She's basically like anyone else but also her own self, and thus the definition of a great character.  Everyone else is supporting, but they provide a rich, varied web of relationships for Brittany.  Watkins and Micah Stock are her running buddies; Stock is good comic relief, and Watkins is a standout in several poignant scenes.  Howery is laugh-out-loud at times, as expected, but succeeds in quieter moments, too.  But Ambudkar nearly steals the whole show, as a hilarious deadbeat early who develops organically into a flawed yet warm, likable guy.  Only Alice Lee, as Brittany's toxic roommate, overplays things a bit, but her role still produces the intended results.

Brittany, both the character and the film, begin as potentially derivative stereotypes that immediately deliver more meaningful and entertaining - and far deeper - results than expected.  The premise is a familiar one in which a character with a central, visible flaw works to overcome it through an overall transformation.  That's fine, but you need either a really impressive script or performances to get something out of it that stands out.  Fortunately, Brittany has both.  I'm having a hard time recalling any film that sketches out a more vivid and believable real-world scenario than this.  It's of this moment in time, finding a place for everything from social media to opioids in a natural way while not flaunting them.  Most important is the seeming mind-meld between first time writer-director Colaizzo and star Bell.  While the actress communicates both subtly and devastatingly with her mere body language, she also delivers her great lines just the way they need to be.  If everyone else in the film were mere scenery, though, it wouldn't have been nearly as good.  As in real life, Brittany shows that we owe who we are at least as much to those around us as to our own efforts and traits.  Brittany may have lived with a longtime "friend" at the start, but that and the loss of other relationships had a direct effect on her spinning out of control.  While she takes the initiative herself to turn things around, it's only by meeting and truly getting to know Watkins' once-reviled neighbor - and a few other friends - that it takes hold.  And when setbacks threaten to upend her efforts, it's both new and old friends again who help her back up.  There are a few awkward turns along the way, and some conversations that get a bit too on-the-nose; when Brittany's feeling down, the cable TV-quality score is also an ear-sore at times.  But Brittany gets the important things right - oh, and she does run that marathon, and it's at least as uplifting as hoped - and in ways that you probably won't expect.

***

Brittany Runs a Marathon is a great success of its own, and an equally good sign for the film industry overall.  Produced by tech giant Amazon, this is a far better effort than its well-intentioned but poorly executed Late Night from earlier this year.  If we can get more creative, talent-driven films like these funded going forward, it's only a good thing for film.  Colaizzo, up to now involved in theater, and Bell, a supporting comedic actor, are the kind of people we want leading films; what we don't want is efforts like Ad Astra - coasting on familiar names and previously-successful formulas to disaster.  Since this is from Amazon, it will hopefully be available on Prime at some point.  Be sure to give it a try when you can!



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60964660

Ad Astra

Score:  C-

Directed by James Gray
Starring Brad Pitt, Tommy Lee Jones, Ruth Negga
Running time: 124 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Brad Pitt is an astronaut with a family legacy to live up to in this sprawling sci-fi picture.  Despite a promising set up, Ad Astra ends up adrift due to trying to be both a serious, awards-style drama and an exciting adventure.  The script is nowhere near up to the task, and Pitt, left to work pretty much solo, isn't, either.  Not recommended for any but the most hardcore sci-fi fans.


As humanity reaches further and further into the galaxy - including a moon base and frequent explorations into deep space - the Earth itself begins to be subjected to mysterious power surges.  Astronaut Maj. Roy McBride (Pitt) meets top officials, who inform him that the surges may be emanating from the mission of the famed Clifford McBride, Roy's father.  The younger McBride agrees to lead a search mission, though just getting to space requires a battery of sensitive psychological testing and work with a team of eager yet naive flight mates.  Clifford has not been seen or heard from in sixteen years; has his personal quest grown out control, endangering his son and many others?

For a big movie, Ad Astra has a small cast, and even fewer significant players involved.  Brad Pitt is the focal point, as Maj. McBride.  One of Hollywood's last remaining megastars, Pitt really doesn't show us anything new here; in fact, it's an underwhelming performance that he seems vulnerable to now and then.  His McBride is the brooding hero type, stoic to the outside world (particularly on those pesky psych evals) yet supposedly anguished and conflicted on the inside.  A large portion of the blame goes to the inert script, but Pitt just can't seem to resist being seen as an ubermensch, cooly competent and unerringly right when those around him flail helplessly.  This movie is crying out for emotional connection, but Pitt can't provide any.  There really aren't any other major characters; the most important is the elder McBride, played by Tommy Lee Jones, who is seen in brief recorded clips until a few minutes of live action.  Jones makes sense in the role but he's wasted; the inevitable father-son reunion is sterile, and Clifford disappointingly dull.  Ruth Negga gets the next biggest part but it's basically a plot device to help Pitt on his way; and Liv Tyler gets to play yet another Sad Wife (it would have been better to cut this part entirely).

Ad Astra tries to be both Prestige Pic and exciting action film; it never strikes the balance and ends up failing altogether, save the visuals and a few set pieces.  The premise and near-future world of the film are at least interesting.  A mysterious, long-lost explorer may hold the key to averting disaster on Earth, and it's interesting, in the first part of the film, seeing the imagined space infrastructure - from massive, miles-long low orbit stations to a commercialized moon base.  Some of the action is exciting (although ultimately predictable), and the cinematography - esp. eerie blue Neptune and its rings - is well done and the film at least knows enough to give it a co-starring role with Pitt.  But frankly, it's just a mess after that.  It tries to achieve two main narrative goals, both through Pitt: make his way to deep space to (physically) find his father and prevent a disaster; and, ostensibly more importantly, emotionally find his father and inner peace.  Unfortunately, the script is a disaster, both in the overall plotting and the scene-to-scene execution.  The threat - power surges - is on one hand too abstract, but also happens to strike at the most convenient times (if not for poor Pitt) to try to juice the film with a little action.  The government is implied as a cynical, if not sinister, force... yet Pitt ends up doing exactly what they want him to do, anyway.  Much of the action is also ludicrous, if not unintentionally hilarious, from murderous space monkeys, to Pitt literally surfing through Neptune's rings, to a space shuttle version of the airplane take off-stowaway ploy(!).  Some of this might be acceptable if the film was just meant as a simple blockbuster, but most of the time it is clearly trying to be a Dark, Slow, Awards Bait movie.  This is where the father-son portion comes in.  But for all the voice-over describing how Pitt felt abandoned by his father and has now ruined his own life by following in his footsteps, there is absolutely no feeling of connection to either McBride or their relationship.  The movie tries to shoehorn in beats from other (far superior) sci-fi films to achieve prestige and power, but they are all for show, and all the emptier by comparison.

***

Ad Astra is another disappointing film in a year that has been worryingly full of them for me.  I am rather stupefied that it has an 83% score on Rotten Tomatoes at the moment (though some critics do seem to share my far more negative views on it).  I must say that my interest in sci-fi has waned quite a bit in recent years; partly because they are usually too dark and moody, partly because I'm tiring of many of the well-worn tropes (Ad Astra grates on me with both of those).  On the other hand, I have called for more original films from Hollywood in this very space in other reviews.  Well, this is not the way to do it.  If you're a huge sci-fi fan, hey, give it a try - maybe you'll like it more than I do, as many of the critics do.  But otherwise, I recommend just skipping it altogether.



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61092966

Hobbs & Shaw

Score:  D+

Directed by David Leitch
Starring Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Vanessa Kirby, Idris Elba
Running time: 135 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Hobbs & Shaw brings the high adrenaline action of the Fast & Furious franchise, with the feuding couple of Johnson and Statham taking the original family's place.  If you've seen other F&F films before, you'll know what to expect - along with an extra, unpleasant dollop of the leads' out of control testosterone race.  Yeah, there are a few interesting stunts - but not nearly worth it for everything else you have to put up with.  Avoid.


When an MI6 task force attempts to secure a secret biological weapon of mass destruction, a terrorist group led by Brixton Lore (Elba) intervenes.  The task force's leader, Hattie Shaw (Kirby), is forced to inject herself with the dormant weapon and flee, but she is soon on the run not only from the terrorists but also her own leaders.  Longtime rivals Deckard Shaw (Statham), Hattie's brother, and Luke Hobbs (Johnson) are called in to find her; they both begin the search, but refuse to work together.  The clock is ticking, however, and soon the virus will kill its carrier - and likely unleash a plague on the world.

Hobbs & Shaw stars two of the newer and bigger, literally and figuratively, stars of the Fast & Furious franchise, along with several welcome additions.  Dwayne Johnson, as the unlikely global star emerged from a start as a pro wrestler, is the 1A lead of the film as Luke Hobbs.  While he has shown some considerable acting skill in other film roles, Johnson quickly falls back on the masculine posturing that can still trap him, a likely vestige of his wrestling days.  He is quite good at bringing the camera and audience's attention to himself, but here it's all testosterone-driven, which he tries and fails to offset with an occasional and awkwardly forced lighter side.  Statham, as Deckard, lacks the star wattage of his co-lead, but his character and performance are at least a bit more honest and consistent.  A gruff, self-absorbed criminal, he grudgingly works for the good - though only because his sister is in danger.  The film's ugly humor also therefore fits him more naturally.  Vanessa Kirby, off a nice supporting role in last summer's Mission Impossible, is the most interesting - when she gets the chance to be.  Mostly she's the damsel in distress (despite being a trained MI6 agent), but early in the film shows some fun spunk.  Idris Elba, a great actor and particularly in villainous or intimidating roles, is utterly wasted here.  He's about as physically imposing as possible (even referred to as "black Superman"), but his script is disappointingly bland and, frankly, so is his performance.

Hobbs & Shaw, while a spin off of the main Fast & Furious franchise, still retains most of its cousins' DNA - for good, but mostly for bad.  The biggest difference is in fact the most obvious one: most of the F&F team is on the sidelines here, with only relative newcomers Hobbs (joined in the fifth film) and Shaw (first starring in the seventh film) leading the way.  The plot is outright conventional action blockbuster, though the franchise overall has moved this direction, too.  Although the obvious reason for teaming up Johnson and Statham is to amp up the fight scenes, H&S still has several set pieces featuring vehicles.  As we've come to expect, these are over-the-top, to one degree or another.  The most ridiculous one, involving chaining cars together - while moving - to bring down a helicopter, produces the most delirious fun in the film.  Aside from it, despite boosting the intensity and stakes in just about every way possible, little else manages to achieve this one pleasure that you hope to get out of a F&F film.  Mostly, it's a failure of imagination.  Oh, a random virus that can kill every human on Earth?  Hmm, a broken man rebuilt into a nearly indestructible cyborg?  When everything is Extreme As Possible, it all loses its potency.  Then we get to the truly bad parts of F&F, which H&S carries on proudly (and/or obliviously).  No one goes to an action blockbuster for the writing, but these scripts are so bad they make my head hurt.  Only a cameo from Vin Diesel, delivering a choice line in his trademark horrible way, could have made it worse.  Along with the usual cringey, forced "all for family" schlock, H&S spends a lot of time on very unfamilial insult duels, racing each other to the lowest common denominator.  Here, "art" seems to imitate life, as Johnson and Statham apparently were concerned to a very, very sad level about how much they each got dissed and punched compared to the other.  The competition extends to their fictional sex lives as Statham, angry that his "sister" may take a liking to Johnson, gets Eiza Gonzalez to make out with him before disappearing again.  There is impressive stunt and effects work on display in H&S, and I don't want to dismiss their efforts - but when it comes to the guys on screen, yuck.

***

Hobbs & Shaw checks many of Hollywood's warning boxes, yet still suckered me to see it in the theater.  I've seen several of the other F&F movies before; what they've been able to boast in effects and stunt work has always been canceled out by mind-numbingly poor scripts and performances, even by action blockbuster standards.  Still, I thought H&S might finally be the one to acknowledge, if not fix, the past problems while keeping the fun parts.  Symbolically, Ryan Reynolds and Kevin Hart both show up in cameos (sorry to spoil - but hopefully you won't see this movie anyway).  At first, it was nice to see them.  Instead, both their presence and the film as a whole worsen the main problem at the franchise's core:  film as the most purely blunt weapon possible, bludgeoning its audience at every turn - from the silly action to the false family moments - telling, demanding you to accept what it wants (and fails) to be.  This will be the last Fast & Furious move I ever see - theater or otherwise.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59828436

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood

Score:  B+

Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie
Running time: 161 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Quentin Tarantino takes audiences back to one of his beloved eras - in the world and on film - in late-60s LA.  Appropriately, contemporary superstars DiCaprio and Pitt lead the way in a movie focused on recreating the look, sound, and feel of the past.  Considering that the plot is secondary, it's a bit long, but there's still plenty of fun to be had in one of the auteur's most relaxed works yet.  A great way to spend a warm summer evening.


Los Angeles, 1969, is a city in transformation, with some old stars fading into obscurity and new ones just beginning their rise.  Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) is a long-time TV star, but has found himself resorting to one guest role after another.  He is followed in his set-hopping by old friend and stunt double, Cliff Booth (Pitt), once a star in his own right.  After meeting with a big time producer, Dalton sees one last opportunity to revive his dying career, though the habits he's fallen into over the years present formidable obstacles.  Meanwhile, Booth's encounters the city's growing population of hippies as he journeys through the city, at once fascinated and suspicious of them.  A sprawling place, LA still isn't big enough for the increasingly divergent cultures it contains, and a clash is inevitable.

Once Upon a Time... is anchored by two of Hollywood's biggest megastars, but has a lot of other familiar faces, too.  Leonardo DiCaprio, as the fictitious fading TV star Rick Dalton, produces a tremendous performance, the best in the film.  Most effective are the acute and diverse ways in which he shows Dalton's vulnerability and crisis of confidence; these range from subtle withdrawn postures to hilarious, full-on meltdowns.  Any positive trigger in his life brings out the old confident, even egotistical side - it's always lurking - but it's a ruthless time in LA for Dalton, and DiCaprio shows the turmoil it causes exquisitely.  Pitt is fun to watch as usual, too, but his "cool guy" routine is not appropriate for the role, in my opinion.  Whether it was intended to be that way, or Pitt just made it so, it doesn't quite add up.  It's hard to blame him, though, considering the overall vibe of the film, and he knows how to do it.  Margot Robbie portrays the famed Sharon Tate; although she gets quite a bit of screen time, she has very little dialogue.  It's primarily a visual role, something the gorgeous Robbie is well-suited for, though she also still does a good job conveying her character's care-free, innocent demeanor.  There's a dizzying number of cameo roles (portraying both real and fictitious people... it gets confusing), from Al Pacino to Lena Dunham, but the big three are the primary players.  Still, two supporting roles stand out: Julia Butters as Dalton's precocious young Method-actor (not actress) co-star, and Mike Moh in a brief but hilarious scene as Bruce Lee.

Once Upon A Time is one of Tarantino's most intimate and personal films, full of his trademark style but ultimately too indulgent to achieve greatness.  The setting - a blur of real and made-up LA and Hollywood from the late-60s - is another new one for Tarantino, but as usual it is guided by highly flawed yet intriguing individuals.  The narrative is of very little consequence here; Tarantino instead seeks to - and succeeds wildly - bring the audience into the scenery, from the eternally bright sunshine to the glorious classic rock to the vintage garb of the cool kids.  Unfortunately, two hours and forty minutes is rather long for such a meandering film, and Robbie's role (in addition to the foreboding of her very presence) is basically to give the film super-charged jolts of this style as interludes within Dalton and Booth's stories.  Easily fifteen minutes of this could have been cut out.  Still, Tarantino undeniably creates an absorbing, unique feel that is its own pleasure.  Despite being close partners, Dalton and Booth basically split off into separate adventures.  Thanks largely to DiCaprio's work, I found Dalton's professional struggles - from hilarious trailer meltdowns to clever exchanges with his young co-stars to his on-set failures and triumphs - more compelling.  But the film seems to favor Booth's, with its higher-stakes conflict and historical context.  It is also the one that leads directly to the film's conclusion; having resisted for almost two-and-a-half hours, Tarantino at last unleashes his typical, brutal violence.  While I liked that he once again inverted history for the audience's sadistic, vengeful pleasure, it was also not nearly as easy to fully surrender to it as in the slaughter of evil Nazis and slave owners in Basterds and Django.  A surprising yet somehow smooth end for the film, I walked out, like Dalton, satisfied if not unruffled.

***

While Once Upon a Time falls short (for me) of my favorite of the auteur's movies, it's still a high-quality and refreshing change of pace in the summer season.  Neither a sequel nor a reboot, this - like Tarantino's other films - stands by itself yet is out to entertain just as much as any blockbuster.  While the TV seasons have been thrown into disarray by streaming, the movie schedule has budged little.  It does make sense to have more big, popcorn action spectacles in the summer than in other seasons, but it's great to have a little variety, too.  Right now, only a handful of visionary filmmakers - Tarantino, Nolan, Scorcese, etc. - seem to get the resources required to reach a mass audience.  They are making not only the films we want to see today - mixed with the blockbusters and other genre standards - but also the ones likely to inspire the next generation's visionaries.  Be bold, Hollywood!  Highly recommend Once Upon a Time, but if you're sensitive to gore and violence, careful about the ending.




* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60263751

Toy Story 4

Score:  B+

Directed by Josh Cooley
Starring Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Christina Hendricks, Tony Hale, et. al.
Running time: 100 minutes
Rated G

Long Story Short:  Toy Story 4 is a somewhat surprising continuation of Pixar's flagship franchise, returning Woody (Hanks), Buzz (Allen) and the rest.  The film is positively bursting, with new characters, various plot lines, and, of course, laughs.  Not as consistent or as soaring as earlier entries, the fourth is still a very strong animated adventure.  Recommended for all.


Woody (Hanks) and Co. are happy with their new child owner, Bonnie, who plays with them just like Andy used to (even if Woody now gets left in the closet at times).  Bonnie is about to have a little less play time, though, as she's set to begin kindergarten.  At orientation, she feels lonely and makes herself a new toy from a plastic spork.  Bonnie becomes quite attached to it, but Woody is kept busy preventing Forky (Hale) from throwing himself away.  All the toys come along on a family road trip, but Woody and Forky soon get separated from the rest.  Making their way to the family's destination, they find old friends and new foes, learning new lessons both about becoming attached and finding your own way.

The Toy Story family, already filled with famous voices, adds quite a few welcome additions to its ranks in this fourth installment.  Tom Hanks's Woody remains the lead, ever the loyal and courageous toy.  Hanks's versatile, emotive work once again provides the dramatic, emotional anchor in a story with several familiar themes but also new ones that allow Woody some introspection.  Newcomer Tony Hale, as the improvised toy "Forky", is arguably the co-lead here.  With his high-pitched, cheerful yet nervous voice, Hale is a perfect choice for the obliviously, sometimes pitifully, amiable misfit.  Tim Allen's Buzz Lightyear is relegated to second-string in part four, although he is at least as funny here as before.  Bo Peep (Annie Potts) is technically a returning character, though she missed part three and is much different as well as more prominent in a lead role.  Potts does well showing her as a strong, independent woman (toy).  While the rest of the old gang is around, the only other significant parts go to newcomers.  My favorites are (Keegan-Michael) Key and (Jordan) Peele as prize toys Ducky and Bunny.  They are just as hilarious as you'd expect, bringing their own brand of humor but still fitting it neatly into the tone of the Pixar-verse.  Christina Hendricks plays a rather familiar-seeming villain, this one off-setting her ruthlessness with a cheery lighter side.  Finally, Keanu Reeves also (literally) crashes the party as Canada's own Duke Caboom.

Toy Story 4 is a very strong animated film and (final?) entry to the franchise that launched Pixar, although its world's very familiarity leads to diminishing returns.  For Part Four, the filmmakers retained much the same overall structure that we've seen before (at least until the end), while mixing things up more in the details.  There's yet another new toy (Forky), charming on its own yet threatening the old guard with competition for attention.  But not only is Forky not interested in this competition in the slightest, he's even (early on) unsure of his identity and purpose - an object of almost pure imagination and almost too blank of a slate, which is intriguing.  The "villain" is the most disappointingly self-plagiarized part of the film, tweaking just the surface details but basically the same as the Prospector or Lotso from previous films.  It results in part of the film's final act being fairly anti-climactic.  However, Bo Peep's rogue is a breath of fresh air.  She's untethered from any human - but unlike other toys in the series, she loves it.  The film very cleverly yet subtly combines this attitude with the form of another iteration of Hollywood's recent (and welcome) explosion of strong, interesting heroines.  Woody is helplessly drawn to her, at first by their past closeness, but then is unable to resist confronting the idea he has always been so strenuously opposed to: being childless.  On a more general level, Toy Story 4 is as funny as its predecessors, but less consistent in overall quality.  Buzz's revelation of his "inner voice" is hilarious, as are Bunny and Ducky's asides, though the film has less of the series' genius humor in its natural flow.  Similarly, the pacing is rather uneven; for example, most of Forky's development occurs early on before suddenly switching gears to the traditional toys-get-separated adventure (not surprising, as eight people are listed as working on the story).  While the journey is a little rougher along the way this time, the film's true ending is both pleasantly surprising and also appropriately sweet.

***

Toy Story 4 is yet another sequel, but like Spider-Man, represents a significant improvement to the summer's offerings.  Well over half the films I've seen this year - and all of the summer titles so far - have been sequels or remakes.  That's the result of my own choices, and there is a huge range in outcomes for these films (I've also avoided some prominent ones, like Godzilla - "fool me once..." - and Aladdin - "eh...").  Toy Story 4 is one of the franchises that has produced rewarding sequels, though both it and Pixar in general are probably at the point where going back to original ideas for awhile is for the best.  As I've said before, all of Hollywood could learn some valuable lessons by studying what this incredibly good animated studio has been doing for over twenty years now.  Sequel/remake fatigue or not, I highly recommend Toy Story 4 for families and anyone else.





* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60272362

Spider-Man: Far From Home

Score:  B+

Directed by Jon Watts
Starring Tom Holland, Zendaya, Samuel L. Jackson, Jake Gyllenhaal
Running time: 129 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Spider-Man: Far From Home is the latest film in the MCU superhero world, as young heroes like Tom Holland's Peter Parker look to fill the boots of RDJ and the old guard.  It works as both general, crowd-pleasing summer blockbuster and as an exciting vanguard of the franchise.  It overstretches in most areas just a bit, but that's based on the MCU's high standards; go see this whether you're an MCU devotee or simply want some summer fun in the theater.


Months after the Avengers restored order to the universe - and half its souls - society continues to adjust.  For Peter Parker (Holland), that includes strange effects on his high school, where he and many of his classmates pick up where they left off even as others - now five years older - have moved on.  He is relieved for the chance at a break via a field trip to Europe, and decides to leave his tights and web-slingers at home.  Meanwhile, however, new threats have already surfaced.  Nick Fury (Jackson) and Maria Hill find that what appeared to have been massive storms were actually attacks by elemental creatures.  These creatures came from another world in the multiverse, a byproduct of the crisis averted by the Avengers.  Fortunately, a new good guy, Mysterio (Gyllenhaal), came along with them.  Parker just wants to enjoy some quiet time, but finds himself pulled into the latest danger; soon he must decide what part to play in this dangerous new, post-Iron Man world.

Far From Home returns most of the cast from the MCU's first Spider-Man film, Homecoming, and adds one more famous name to it.  Tom Holland reprises his role as Peter Parker aka Spider-Man, and while it's his second "solo" movie, he has now appeared in five total MCU titles.  That means the audience is now comfortable seeing him - the third actor, and by far the youngest - in the famous role, yet there remained plenty of room to explore his new take on it.  The film focuses most on Parker's continued ambivalence over his role as Spider-Man, and Holland conveys this convincingly.  In his many scenes with his classmates, he fits in easily, as awkward and nervous around them as he is in battle.  He remains one of the MCU's most charismatic new stars, and has developed good chemistry with his cast mates, particularly Zendaya.  She, playing MJ, gets a significantly larger role this time, actively involved in both the action and personal moments.  While still mostly the same quiet girl with an air of indifference, MJ also breaks out of that mold here, particularly as her feelings for Parker grow.  Yet she maintains integrity of the character, something many young actors fail to do in such a transition.  Jake Gyllenhaal is a great new addition, a warm, father-like figure to Parker early on before revealing a delightfully weirder side as it goes on.  MCU mainstays Nick Fury (Jackson) and Happy (Favreau) are welcome presences; the latter gets perhaps his most interesting MCU part yet, while the former just feels a bit off.  Finally, the other students - and two teacher chaperones - get significant screentime; while amusing, they ham it up a bit too much occasionally.

Spider-Man: Far From Home definitively shows that the MCU still has plenty of creative gas left in the tank following Avengers: Endgame's epic conclusion to the first eleven years' worth of films.  It plays a similar role to the Ant-Man films - relatively light "chaser" diversions on the heels of massive Avengers adventures.  Still, while there is plenty in here for the MCU fan excited for the franchise's new direction, it is also a general crowd-pleaser, largely thanks to its coming-of-age dramedy elements.  Parker's pursuits of MJ are front and center, but even sidekick Ned gets his own romantic subplot; to go with this drama are the hijinks of a group of teenagers fooling around as tourists and their exasperated teachers giving chase.  Unfortunately, I found it to be a bit overdone, losing the subtle touch of Homecoming's school scenes.  Certainly plenty entertaining, still, but both the script and the performances almost seem to be grasping to match the intensity of the action.  This aspect, too, is amplified in comparison to the previous film.  Spider-Man and Mysterio's raging battles with elemental beasts (animated forces of water, fire and so on) are just the appetizer.  The action is best when Spider-Man is trying to save lives - stopping a building from falling down, for example - and a scene involving ever more elaborate illusions is a true highlight.  But it also drifts towards too big and too much at times, the screen becoming so busy with CGI that it begins to blur together.  Some of that busyness is a direct consequence of the plot, which is well conceived.  It's not hard to see from early on that it's going to have a major twist, but it's nevertheless a clever one.  Really, it's all good, from the plot to the action to the Parker scenes, with the MCU's typically high level of quality.  Pulling back on it all a little could have made it truly special, but it's still another strong superhero movie.

Now, as the MCU geek I am, I'll delve a little into details related to the franchise overall - so feel free to skip this, either if you're not interested or want to avoid SPOILERS!!!  As the first film post-Iron Man, Cap, and (???) Thor, Far From Home gives us some interesting possibilities while still leaving much up in the air.  The villain's mission, to manufacture artificial crises just so that he can play the "hero", makes perfect sense in a world with a major superhero vacuum.  There are still plenty out there, of course, but leaderless and recuperating (physically and otherwise).  Throughout the film, I felt there was something off about Nick Fury, so it relieved me but also horrified me when the post-credits scene showed that he and Hill were Skrulls in disguise the whole time.  I had really hoped that Captain Marvel would be the last we saw of those aliens, but apparently not.  Maybe it's just a one-off thing - but what the hell was that ship the real Fury was on?!  Finally, maybe most importantly, I'm glad that the film remembered Peter Parker is still just a teenager.  He's figuring himself out, and - despite his impressive abilities and tech - is vulnerable to clever, manipulative foes.  Obviously this is worth keeping in mind due to the other credits scene (JK Simmons is back!!!), but also something the MCU needs to replicate throughout its new chapter: the heroes just keep getting more and more powerful, from Black Panther to Captain Marvel, and they need their own challenges (perhaps even "kryptonite"), too.  But so far, so good.  Excited to see what's next for the MCU!

***

Spider-Man: Far From Home fortunately breaks a streak of disappointing sequels/spin-offs this summer, both maintaining the MCU's remarkable critical-approval streak as well as surely blowing up the box office.  We've been in uncharted waters with the MCU for years now - how it can sustain both critical and popular success while producing multiple new films each year, each of which is strongly tied to all the others - but now we'll see if it can survive the loss of its three leading/ "founding" actors.  Hollywood and theaters increasingly depend on not just the superhero genre but specifically the unprecedented success of the MCU; Endgame and Captain Marvel are #1 and #2 this year, combining for more than 20% of the entire box office.  Here's the thing: Marvel hasn't been making extraordinarily entertaining, high quality clones for these 11 years.  It's improved, taken chances, and pushed cinema to new places with its continuing narrative form.  That is a formula not exclusive to Marvel, and if Hollywood wants to survive and thrive in this new media world, it should take notes.





* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60832103