Ford v Ferrari

Score:  A

Directed by James Mangold
Starring Christian Bale, Matt Damon, Caitriona Balfe, Jon Bernthal
Running time: 152 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Ford v Ferrari tells the exciting yet complex tale of an historic race, the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans, which ultimately came down to the close bond between two friends.  Those friends are played by titans of Hollywood, Christian Bale and Matt Damon, and they are worth every penny and more that they made.  Surrounded by a strong supporting cast, the leads excel at creating both race track excitement and moments of hilarity.  Come for the stars, and enjoy one of the most well-rounded, entertaining films in recent years.  Highly recommended.


In 1963, Henry Ford II was nervous.  Heir to one of the most famous industrialists of the 20th century, Ford had begun to struggle against his competition.  Nerves turned to rage after being humiliated by the iconic Ferrari, and so he became determined to beat the Italian car company at their own game.  Ford turned to Carroll Shelby (Damon), winner of the 1959 24 Hours of Le Mans race in France, to lead a racing team.  While Shelby took to designing a powerful new car, he had stopped racing himself due to a heart condition, and so recruited his brilliant but volatile driver friend Ken Miles (Bale).  Even as the two got to work on the technical challenges of their mission, though, they found themselves opposed by other forces within the Ford company itself before even getting to the race track.

Ford v Ferrari boasts an impressive cast that brings its outsized personalities to life.  Christian Bale is the co-lead as the prickly British race car driver Ken Miles, and he is predictably outstanding in the role.  I've long been a fan of Bale, but his recent string of performances (The Big Short, Vice) has elevated him in my view to one of the best - if not the best - contemporary actors.  Finally employing his native accent, Bale clearly relishes playing the hotheaded master of the race track, fully bringing out the humor and awe it entails but also presenting him as a sympathetic, believable man out of the car.  From struggling with his day job to singing with his son to negotiating with his wife, Bale creates both a very compelling as well as entertaining character.  Add in the nuanced physical traits and tics that Bale does so well, and it's another bravura performance.  Matt Damon, a great actor himself, can't help but be overshadowed.  Yet he does excellent work, too: part Ocean's Eleven-type cool/competent dude, part weary but savvy veteran of his trade, Damon is the perfect yin to Bale's yang.  At times almost an audience surrogate, Damon's Shelby is particularly crucial (and effective) at outmaneuvering scheming Ford executives.  The rest are supporting roles, but there are plenty of good ones.  Top of the list is Caitriona Balfe playing Miles's wife; she's a strong and supportive yet independent woman, with one particularly good scene in which she turns the racing car tables on her husband.  Jon Bernthal doesn't play his usual tough guy asshole (which he excels at) here, but does a nice job as one of the few good guy Ford execs.  Tracy Letts as Henry Ford II and Ray McKinnon as a racing team member are also fun parts in this super cast.

Ford v Ferrari is a fairly straightforward, uncomplicated film, but its overall strength, particularly in its performances and main set pieces, make it a terrific if traditional Hollywood effort.  You'll probably be familiar with the basic premise:  out of a feud between organizations, a scrappy team is assembled that must overcome all sorts of challenges to prevail.  Interestingly, the film portrays the team's sponsoring organization - Ford - as practically the villain.  That's impressive in its own right, due to today's climate of films currying favor with if not explicitly giving them product placement ads for mega-brands (also fun to poke a finger in the eye of arrogant and abusive corporate executives, but I digress).  It also allow the audience to focus even more specifically on the success and well-being of the team itself; despite not caring for car racing at all myself, I felt fully invested.  Clearly a lot of care, thought, and effort was put into the car races themselves, dazzling in their variety and excitement.  You've got everything from a dusty, backyard-league-type race, to glitzy NASCAR-like fanfare to prestigious, weighty affairs in the Le Mans race itself.  Not only do the settings differ significantly, but the stakes and the challenges in each are unique (most involving the crucial human  element).  Even the training scenes can be breathtaking, thanks in large part to Bale's committed, intense performance, and often involve humor, none better than Damon's taking Henry Ford on a bowel-loosening joyride through an obstacle course.  Speaking of humor, there is plenty of it; not only are Bale and Damon terrific in their timing, but some scenes left me howling, such as a throwback, middle school-like brawl between the two stars as Mrs. Miles looks on, bemused.  The boardroom intrigue, race car action, and consistent laughs flow together so well that the two-and-a-half hour run time just flies by.  The end is admittedly a bit abrupt, just as in a car race, but it's ultimately appropriately done.  It's not all happily-ever-after; there are searing losses and wonderful journeys concluded, in a few well-placed, poignant dramatic moments.

***

In a very up-and-down year at the movies, Ford v Ferrari is an extremely enjoyable triumph.  The film doesn't really go with the newest Hollywood trends, let alone try to break new ground; though it does subtly hint at some important themes in society (timeless themes, at that).  Still, it does a great job effectively blending the classic style of film with something that feels modern; otherwise, it ran the risk of feeling rather stale.  As a non-racing car fan, I can confirm that others like me will find this plenty enjoyable; if anything, I found myself more intrigued by some of the minutiae of the sport that gets bandied about than I would have thought possible.  And that's attributable to just how connected I felt to the team, led by Bale and Damon's characters.  I highly recommend this for any and all audiences.



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60921288

Zombieland: Double Tap

Score:  B+

Directed by Ruben Fleischer
Starring Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin
Running time: 99 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The most sarcastic but deadly zombie hunters are back for more in Double Tap, a sequel to 2009's surprise hit Zombieland.  It can't capture the same freshness and lighting in a bottle of the original, but it doesn't really try.  Instead, it leans on the reliable core cast and adds some welcome new faces to the mix in a simple story with much more thought for detail than the usual sequel.  Recommended for fans of the original, and anyone looking for action-comedy entertainment.


Intrepid survivors of the zombie apocalypse Tallahassee, Columbus, Wichita, and Little Rock (named for their hometowns) have gotten the hang of their new environment, and move into a long-abandoned White House.  While still close as a group, Wichita and Little Rock - practically sisters - decide something's not right, and take off one night.  But Wichita soon finds herself dumped as well, after the pair meet a charismatic new guy promising sanctuary, a promise Wichita doesn't believe.  She comes back to her old friends for help, and they set off in search for Little Rock - but find the landscape has changed, with new residents both living and dead.

Double Tap has a large cast - surprisingly so, considering it's the apocalypse - but both the returning and the new faces are pleasant presences.  Woody Harrelson's Tallahassee is arguably the focal point of the four returning stars, still an unabashed hillbilly whose bark belies a soft center.  He becomes a bit more a leader here (relatively speaking), particularly in his guardian-like role with Little Rock.  He still has plenty of put-downs for Columbus, but even here he pulls back some.  Harrelson clearly takes great relish in the role again, and is key in giving the film a laid back feel.  Jesse Eisenberg's Columbus and Emma Stone's Wichita engage in a surprisingly ordinary relationship, despite the desolation and danger around them.  Eisenberg gets a more active part here, though he's no longer top dog, and Stone seems to just be enjoying hanging out with her goofy pals again.  Breslin's Little Rock has her own story this time, although relatively little screen time considering its importance to the main plot.  She's the least recognizable of the originals, but maybe that's because we didn't really get to know her the first time.  Along for the ride this time is a fun group of newcomers, generally playing either doppelgangers - or polar opposites - of the main cast.  Zoey Deutch gets the biggest role as Madison, Wichita's opposite as a dumb blonde.  She's also literally a competitive opposite, vying for Columbus, and Deutch's performance along with a clever script gives the film an important jolt early on.  Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch are basically Tallahassee and Columbus clones, and the film plays it knowingly.  They're not around long, but they mimic their counterparts well.  Avan Jogia and Rosario Dawson also appear, as a community hippie and Elvis hotel manager, respectively; mostly they're plot devices, but Dawson is an appropriately formidable presence.

The Zombieland sequel is among Hollywood's better attempts at a follow-up to a surprise hit; it doesn't aim too high but it hits its marks pretty accurately.  As irreverent and self-aware as the first film was, the sequel is even more so.  The first few minutes are basically the trailer for the film; slo-mo zombie takedowns and a house-warming White House montage (the latter of which would have made a pleasant surprise, but oh well).  Fortunately, the story kicks into gear before long, and splits in the team - both geographically and emotionally - are well conceived.  Still, it's the first newcomer who makes the film feel distinct from its predecessor.  Madison's bimbo-ness stretches the silliness of the tone without breaking it, but she also fits into the more dramatic character dynamics, too.  While Little Rock is on her own, somewhat bland path (although the parody on apocalyptic haven tropes is broadly funny), the new Gang of Four gets more fun.  There are new zombie foes, from super deadly "Terminator" drones to harmless "Homer" dolts.  And the meeting of Tallahassee and Columbus and their clones is a highlight, from a dorky/hilarious rules competition to an exciting zombie battle.  After that, the action proceeds fairly predictably to the end, although there are still some glorious moments of fun to be had.  The film runs its course not much over an hour and a half, and that's just about the perfect amount of time to spend reconnecting with these old friends.  But stay for the credits, or you'll miss what's possibly the best part!

***

In a sea of sequels, Double Tap is definitely well above average, particularly among 2019's largely disappointing offerings.  It's been a modest success with both critics (68% on Rotten Tomatoes) and audiences ($27 million opening weekend).  Along with sequel fatigue, it's probably also partly a result of this being the tail-end of the zombie phenomenon; even The Walking Dead is fading away.  But it also does a lot right: it's been ten years since the original, so we're ready for another taste of what was a successful formula.  And it introduces some fun new characters and a few clever ideas/ gags, while resisting the urge to go overboard and lose the spirit of the first film.  If you enjoyed the original, definitely see this; it's a summer-like action comedy treat right in the middle of fall!




* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59805887

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