Little Women

Score:  A

Directed by Greta Gerwig
Starring Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Timothee Chalamet
Running time: 135 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  The classic tale from Louisa May Alcott receives a triumphant modern adaptation from one of Hollywood's most talented filmmakers, Greta Gerwig.  Ronan, Pugh, Watson and Scanlen form its essential, vibrant foundation as the sisters, but Gerwig steers them skillfully with touches like a reframed chronology.  It's a winner - highly recommended.


In 1861, a mother (Dern) looks after her four boisterous daughters Meg, Jo, Amy, and Beth (Watson, Ronan, Pugh, Scanlen), distinct yet inseparable.  In 1868, the sisters are separated, life taking its toll on each and in fact balancing precariously for one of them.  The years between show the growth of these loving yet competitive, teasing, consoling and above all faithful siblings.  A father away at war and a rich neighbor's volatile son play their parts, too, as the March sisters savor and struggle with life.

Little Women has a very impressive cast, ably led by the four title sisters.  Saoirse Ronan as second-oldest child Jo serves as the first among the leads.  Ronan is probably the best of the actors (three Oscar nominations already), and she demonstrates it in her performance as the most independent of the sisters, Jo, whose passion is in writing.  Ronan gives Jo a natural air of responsibility in sharing leadership duties with Watson's Meg, yet she also does a great job showing her exasperation (and discomfort) with some of the expectations of a young lady of the era.  While she's the most introverted, her passion also shines through whether in a private jig or long, quiet sessions of scribbling.  Florence Pugh plays Amy, the second youngest sister, the classic "middle child".  Pugh has a challenging role here, easy to overplay her passions, but she keeps control and has her own form of nuance.  Comfortable in public - at times too much so - Pugh shows Amy seething in private yet also tender, too.  Emma Watson is well-placed in the role of eldest sister Meg.  Perhaps not quite as strong an actor as Ronan or Pugh, Watson is entirely convincing and affecting in the right situation. Here, she's the most traditionally lady-like, "well-behaved" one who can still let her hair down now and then.  The youngest sister, Beth, is played by Eliza Scanlen, who's unfamiliar to me.  As the "baby", Scanlen is a bit more reserved, but shows a maturity and confidence in her quiet actions that bely her age (and plays a mean piano sonata).  Timothee Chalamet as Laurie gets the most significant supporting role, his relationships with the sisters and mercurial nature providing extra intrigue to the story; Chalamet does well with it.  Among plenty of other interesting but smaller roles, the sisters' mother and aunt, played by Laura Dern and Meryl Streep, respectively, are particularly well done.

Little Women is an excellent, traditional (naturally) piece of filmmaking that combines deftly modern touches with the classic tale to provide a touching portrait of the famed sisters.  Gerwig, one of Hollywood's brightest rising stars, is typically known for more modern styles, as in Lady Bird.  Thus this seems a curious fit for her, but by focusing her efforts on more subtle elements while letting the actors own the story, Gerwig respects the tradition while optimizing its presentation for a modern audience.  The most significant change is moving from a linear to an interwoven (between an "early" and a "later" period) chronology.  This is a brilliant move: as the film is really about the relationships and growth of the sisters, going back and forth allows the audience to track the developments in both throughout the film, not to mention providing some crucial foreshadowing.  It also evens out the tone well, since the earliest scenes are the more cheerful, almost carefree while the later ones are often somber or at least quieting.  The style also is nicely balanced.  It eschews the strict formality - everything "just so", from dialogue to choreography - of a typical period piece, while retaining a straightforward, at times refreshingly earnest, feel.  Having set this "table", Gerwig unleashes her actors to do the rest.  Most importantly, the sister actors seem to have a true bond.  Their happiness is infectious as they wrestle and laugh on the floor, and the hurt is deep when they sabotage (intentionally and not) each other.  Crucially, each sister gets her own story, too, and feels like a well-rounded individual; this is where Meg and Beth shine in particular.  But it's when they are there for each other, in good times and bad, that the film really sings.

***

Little Women is not the kind of film that I usually look forward to, but as you can tell I'm quite glad that I saw it.  In fact, I really knew very little about this classic in advance, which ended up working out as well as it does for any other film.  I didn't have any preconceived notions of how it "should" go, let alone what would happen at all.  Given its amazing cast, great reviews (95% on Rotten Tomatoes), Oscar buzz and - at least as important as the rest - the direction of Greta Gerwig, I was fortunately drawn in to see this in the theater.  It's a genius choice for Gerwig; while it clearly fits with her fondness for telling great stories with women at their center, it shows how that can easily be accomplished through revisiting the classics, too.  Along with being an excellent film overall, it is also an entertaining and inspiring one.  Highly recommended.




* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61598613

Uncut Gems

Score:  C

Directed by Josh and Benny Safdie
Starring Adam Sandler, Julia Fox, Lakeith Steinfeld, Idina Menzel
Running time: 135 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Uncut Gems sees comedy king Adam Sandler turn to darker, grittier material in the story of a gambler's downward spiral.  He does very good work - it helps that he seems well-suited to the lead role - but the filmmakers fail to create any redeeming value in this realistic yet intensely unpleasant work.  There are surely better options for whatever kind of movie you're in the mood for.  Skip.


Howard (Sandler), a New York jewelry dealer, is in the red yet feels that he has finally struck real gold.  A months-long process has put him in possession of a rare and dazzling black opal, still encased in the hunk of rock in which it was found in Africa.  When a co-worker brings in basketball star Kevin Garnett, the man is transfixed by the treasure.  Howard sees his opportunity, and puts in motion a plan to make a small fortune.  However, his shady creditors lurk around every corner, impatient to settle up - and as they get wind of their debtor's secrets, things get deadly serious.

Uncut Gems has a small cast, built around the driving performance of the lead.  Adam Sandler takes a turn away from his usual crappy comedies for a dark and dramatic role, and he shows that he has impressive talent (at least in the right situation).  Sandler's acting is far and away the best part of the film, an intensely vile and unlikable - yet equally convincing - man who seeks redemption yet is clearly incapable of it.  A moron and an asshole, Howard's advantages are his persistence and skill with manipulation.  Sandler puts to use his well-practiced shouting (by turns unintelligible and laced with the F-word every two seconds) and quieter but equally grating begging and cajoling.  It's all very unpleasant - like the film itself - but at least he's the perfect actor for the job, and makes it feel quite real.  Veterans Steinfeld and particularly Menzel (playing Howard's estranged wife) both do good work, too.  But it's newbies Fox, as Howard's employee/mistress, Julia, and Garnett, playing himself, who impress the most, due to having more crucial roles and excelling despite their lack of experience.

Uncut Gems is a fairly well-crafted film, to go along with some good performances - but it's also one of the most unpleasant films I've ever seen, particularly because it's ultimately pointless.  Howard is an extremely flawed character who has quite a few bad experiences, largely of his own making.  This would seem to lend itself to a redemption story - even if Howard doesn't become a better man or triumph over adversity, at least there should be movement in the right direction, becoming a tragedy.  But no, Howard doesn't seem to learn a thing or become better in any way; if anything, he gets worse as the film goes along (as does his predicament - at least that's appropriate).  So... I guess it's all one big PSA about the dangers of gambling?  I mean, Howard is just so awful and stupid it makes your head want to explode, in both his personal and professional life (poor Julia gets it in both worlds).  The one positive is that the film does feel like a realistic portrayal of New York's sleazier corners; Howard's not the only one who does dumb things, and the confusion and emotion is interesting at times.  There's also plenty of shouting - often multiple people at once, so you can't tell what anyone is saying - filled with cursing.  I can totally buy this as realistic, again, but also a bit headache-inducing and while I have a moderate tolerance for the F-word, it started to bother me.  The soundtrack is also very bizarre, a lot of electronics and 80s or sci-fi feel; it's also loud and obtrusive, particularly in the first part of the film, and thus adding yet another layer of unpleasantness.  Notice a theme here?

***

Uncut Gems is one film that I wish I had done a bit more research on before going to see.  Generally I like to know as little going into seeing a film as possible, so that I can have a fresh perspective and few expectations.  As this film is in the Oscars/awards conversation, I wanted to check it out.  Now, I want to know why it's considered in the realm of good films at all.  It has a bewildering 92% on Rotten Tomatoes currently, so I'll be checking out at least a few critics' reviews to try and find what the hell I'm missing.  In the mean time, I can't recommend this to anyone - unless you happen to be in a sadistic (perhaps even masochistic) mood and want to see an asshole get his just desserts.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61865131

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

Score:  B+

Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac
Running time: 142 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Star Wars, as the world has known it since 1977, comes to a conclusion in this ninth film, and sure enough there are echoes from around this entire galaxy throughout Rise.  Rey, as played by Daisy Ridley, continues as the strong lead in this particular trilogy, and her story takes on even greater prominence than before.  Unfortunately, there's just too much packed in around her, and supporting players like Poe and Finn fall short as it all reaches an exciting yet predictable climax.  Obviously a must-see for fans, but it isn't quite the level of special we've come to expect.


As the First Order, under the command of Kylo Ren (Driver) continues to spread its shadow over the galaxy far, far away, the Resistance fights to survive.  A spy within the Order gives our heroes a breakthrough, revealing that an old foe on an unknown planet is the focal point of their plans.  The last remaining Jedi, Rey (Ridley), ventures out with ace pilot Poe (Isaac), stormtrooper-turned-rebel Finn (Boyega) and Chewbacca to find the planet and defeat their foe before it's too late.  However, Ren - once a Jedi himself - continues his personal mission to find and turn, or destroy, Rey.  The fate of the galaxy, then, rests once more on the outcome of a clash in the Force.

The cast of Rise of Skywalker is quite large, adding to the characters introduced in the previous films in the trilogy.  The lead is Daisy Ridley's Rey, as she has been throughout this Star Wars series (for some stupid reason, though, she is only the fourth actor to appear in the credits).  While the script still doesn't help her as much as it did her predecessor Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), she impressively conveys her own, distinct mix of strength and vulnerability.  She is now almost fully in command of her tangible powers in the Force - from floating serenely in the air to zapping enemy ships with deadly lightning.  Yet she is also still clearly bothered with the mystery of her place in the Force; now that she had ordinary parents, and that she is also the last of the Jedi, what is her responsibility, to the ancient (and essentially extinct) order and to the war raging around her?  Ridley is equally compelling and believable in showing both her internal and external conflicts, and my only regret is that she wasn't given more to work with in this trilogy.  Adam Driver also does well, though I'm not sure he is as successful with Kylo Ren as Ridley is with his opposite in Rey.  I don't think it spoils much to say that Ren remains conflicted for much of the film, and though Driver favors his own, dour mask rather than the Vader-like device, it may hide his own struggles a bit too well here.  Poe and Finn, played by Isaac and Boyega, respectively, reprise their roles as Rey's buddies, but sadly they are less interesting and more generic in this last chapter.  Poe is a bit more the mischievous one, and Finn more protective of Rey, but they really serve the same purpose of following her around until the final battle.  With so much action and attention revolving (appropriately) around those four, the rest of the cast gets bits and pieces, some more effective than others.  Carrie Fisher's Leia gets a poignant and fitting end, and C-3PO has one of the film's more clever, humorous touches.  Still, several of the new characters are pretty much irrelevant, and if you happened to enjoy some of the other returning ones, you may also be disappointed (or if you didn't like them, pleased that they are minimized).

The Rise of Skywalker, as the end (perhaps?) of the Star Wars tale forty-two years in the making, is epic, blockbuster filmmaking; inevitably, there are both thrilling victories and plenty of nagging concerns.  I will attempt to review it here by two standards: as a standalone film, and as an entry in the Star Wars universe.  A new Star Wars movie is always one of the biggest spectacles to experience in the theater, and Rise of Skywalker makes good on that promise.  Plenty of dazzling space battles and intense lightsaber duels, along with a story that, while focused on characters, also features literally planet-exploding stakes.  The thing is, it's getting harder and harder for even blockbusters to truly inspire awe.  The Force Awakens managed this through a modernized visual style on the old school SW feel; The Last Jedi used some new techniques and the element of surprise to achieve it.  Skywalker seems to mostly go with quantity over quality, though, and so it doesn't measure up to the previous two films.  There are exceptions, particularly scenes teased in the trailers (Rey's desert showdown with Kylo, and their duel on the wreckage of the Death Star).  The "bigness" of a film can swallow it up, but Abrams keeps the characters central as much as possible.  Again, fan allegiances may (will, really) sway how you feel about it, but many characters get little more than nods that also help keep the film grounded.  It's the main characters that truly carry the film, though, and here, Ridley and Driver are what make it a worthy adventure (even if Poe and Finn - secondary roles - drag it down a bit).  The pace is rocket-fueled from the start, which in general is just fine and helps the two hour-twenty minute show flow right along, though like Last Jedi it stuffs in too much superfluous material.  The humor is below standard, though the droids, particularly C-3PO, continue to please.

**Star Wars saga commentary - spoiler alert!!!**

As a Star Wars film - both the ninth overall, and the third in this "mini" trilogy - the events of Rise of Skywalker are frequently the culmination of extensive plot and character developments.  Probably the most significant of these are Rey's triumph over the Sith and her embracing the role as the last Jedi; Ben Solo's redemption (Kylo Ren being his "bad guy"/Sith name) and death; the revelation of Rey being Palpatine's granddaughter; and the defeat of the First Order.  I liked the first two results, and have mixed or indifferent feelings about the last two.  While parallel in many respects to Luke's, Rey's victory feels distinct, too; I think her individual resolve shines through even more.  Obviously the Sith have proven rather durable, but Rey (hopefully?) extinguished Palpatine once and for all; if nothing else, he and his pals have no more "home base" to rally from.  The finality of that victory is appreciated, and I'm also glad that Ben's sacrifice did not seem to overshadow Rey's achievement.  In fact, what he - the Skywalker, remember - does is of a literal supporting rather than leading role.  On the other hand, I might have preferred that Rey truly was a "nobody", rather than a Palpatine.  It still works - and the presence of Palpatine himself is important as the symbol of the Sith through the entire saga - but it would have been even more potent to make this one, vital deviation from the family lineage theme.  There's also the defeat of the First Order, which is practically an afterthought, compared to the Jedi-Sith showdown.  Really, the FO was Empire-lite from the start.  The rebels vs. empire rehash was probably the weakest part of the entire trilogy, both lazy and dull, and the weakest element of Disney's bending to demand for the "good old days" of Star Wars.  No one will agree with every single creative choice made, of course, but the fierce debates are both a sign of and the reason for the enduring, widespread love for the galaxy far, far away.

***

The Rise of Skywalker is among the last movies that I will see this year, and therefore the decade, which seems appropriate given its status as the last* Star Wars (HUGE asterisk).  Two of my other favorite franchises concluded their journeys this year, in Avengers and Game of Thrones.  The first was a resounding success in the form of Endgame, improbably pulling together twenty-one previous films and approximately 35890 characters into something not just coherent but emotionally resonant and viscerally powerful.  Game of Thrones... not so much.  An incredible, intricately-constructed six seasons gave way to two rushed seasons where character development went out the window, the plot became predictable, and my favorite characters (Tyrion and Daenerys) were ruined.  So Star Wars falls somewhere in between those two extremes, probably pretty close to the exact middle.  It's inspired me to do a rewatch of the series sometime, similar to what I did with the Avengers movies this spring.  Stay tuned!

**Update, after second viewing:  I enjoyed the film significantly more the second time around, as I concentrated more on the best parts - basically anything with Rey and/or Kylo Ren - and didn't let the swirl around it distract me.  It is still too busy, and Poe and Finn still unimpressive, but it's quite a bit of fun even beyond the tremendous leads.  I also paid more attention to the score, and I must beg John Williams for forgiveness - I'm not sure what I was thinking earlier (I have deleted the evidence!).  So upgrade this to an A- for me, and most likely a spot in my top 10 of the year.



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61598068

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

Score:  B-

Directed by Marielle Heller
Starring Tom Hanks, Matthew Rhys, Susan Kelechi Watson, Chris Cooper
Running time: 108 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  The famous children's TV show creator has been getting his due recently, and not much can strive to do that better than a feature film with Tom Hanks in the title role.  Unfortunately, this biopic does not live up to its ambitions.  While putting Rogers in more of a side role is smart, the core story is almost unwatchable; only when Hanks shows up does it have a pulse.  Look elsewhere for drama in the theaters; or, check out the Mr. Rogers documentary instead (now on HBO).


Dealing with tumult in his personal life both positive (a new son) and negative (a rift with his father), magazine writer Lloyd (Rhys) is given a "fluff" assignment: a brief profile of Fred ("Mr.") Rogers.  Renowned for his deep, cutting looks into public figures, Lloyd's innate skepticism meets its match in the quiet, modest, and almost unbelievably kind Mr. Rogers.  Still, Lloyd hangs around the set of Mr. Rogers' children's TV show, trying to find his angle.  His focus on this article becomes more intense, too, as his personal life continues to spiral out of his control.  Nearing the end of his tether, perhaps only an opening of his professional mind will allow Lloyd to find peace.

A Beautiful Day has a fairly small cast, and the characters involved don't fulfill the roles one might expect.  It is the journalist Lloyd, played by Matthew Rhys, who is the lead, rather than the famed Mr. Rogers (and the vaguely recognizable actor portraying him).  Unfortunately, this lead role is at the center of the film's deficiencies.  Rhys' acting itself is pretty bland, mostly either unengaged or forced despite being placed in a variety of either dramatically or interpersonally dynamic scenarios.  I'm not sure which was worse: the casting choice, or Rhys' effort.  The script doesn't do him any favors (more on this later), but I put a lot on the performance.  In a significant supporting role is Tom Hanks's Mr. Fred Rogers, and he does excellent work despite some challenges.  Yes, Hanks - perhaps Hollywood's most likable actor - is an obvious choice to play the supernaturally kind Rogers.  But when the audience is very familiar with the appearance and personalities of both actor and character, it's also a strange experience.  It's almost like watching a clone of the two of them mushed together.  Still, Hanks does great, nuanced work, picking up on Rogers's trademark slow and gentle physical and vocal rhythms.  Once again, a better script could have improved the effect further, but it's fascinating nonetheless.  Elsewhere, Watson's subtle performance as "the wife" is really good, while Chris Cooper, playing Lloyd's father, appropriately does as poorly as Rhys (like father like son?).

A Beautiful Day is a bit of a paradox in several ways; it's a straight-ahead drama while trying to insert interesting stylistic aspects here and there, and ultimately it's just OK when it could have been great.  The film is at its core a Mr. Rogers biopic, and the central, if unusual, decision to make Fred a supporting character in his own movie was very wise, I think.  Despite having been a flesh-and-blood human being, Rogers is practically fictional for how different he seems to the rest of us; therefore, a "common" person to serve as audience surrogate was useful.  The problem is that the film presents an entirely uninteresting family drama as the main story and frame it with the Mr. Rogers elements, which when added in feel either bizarrely fantastical or simply too different in tone from the rest.  In fact, the family drama story is treated as a giant episode of Mr. Rogers's show - mainly metaphorically, but also literally in a few odd moments (the first scene is a re-enactment of the start of a Mr. Rogers episode - cool! - and ends in Fred revealing a picture of Lloyd - umm...).  I know this is based on a true story - it's a biopic, after all - but Lloyd's family drama is incredibly dull for how well-worn and predictable it is.  Add in the aforementioned poor performances, and too much of the film that doesn't have Hanks/Rogers in it is almost painful to watch.  Rogers's presence almost always boosts things, but it's also frustratingly hampered by the contexts in which he's placed.  Now, it's not all bad.  Most of the scenes on the TV set - and accompanying characters - are pretty good, and if expanded would have been very welcome.  Along with Hanks's overall performance, a handful of parts are pretty special: the final few moments are so good, in fact, it's an aching reminder of how good the whole thing had the potential to be.

***

A Beautiful Day was disappointing to me, but I seem to be in the minority on this one.  It has a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes; despite a modest-sized release, it's also made $47 million so far.  It's hard to imagine a more enticing film if you want a feel-good drama than one about Mr. Rogers, and I'd like to see more films coming out with this general premise and purpose.  I also understand that Marielle Heller (who made last year's outstanding Can You Ever Forgive Me?) was trying to frame her biopic in a way that best suited her subject, and perhaps show off some stylistic flourishes here and there.  But - in my opinion - it just did not work.  The family drama was so simplistic, over done, poorly performed and flat-out insipid that even the legendary Mr. Rogers could not resuscitate it.  See it when it comes on streaming if you're really curious - and Hanks's performance is worth getting at least a little taste.  But I would strongly advise you turn to the excellent documentary Won't You Be My Neighbor? if you need Mr. Rogers in your life again.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61900962

Knives Out

Score:  A-

Directed by Rian Johnson
Starring Daniel Craig, Ana de Armas, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, et. al.
Running time: 130 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Knives Out is a star-laden whodunnit, a sharp turn for one of Hollywood's most intriguing new directors, Rian Johnson.  Although it's not sci-fi, like Looper or his Star Wars, Knives Out similarly toys with audience expectations for a well-worn archetype.  The cast is sharp and entertaining, and while you may not agree with all the myriad ways Johnson has rearranged the furniture, you'll have a great time anyway.  Highly recommended.


A celebrity is dead, and renowned detective Benoit Blanc (Craig) is on the case.  On the night of elderly crime novelist Harlan Thrombey's birthday - with his entire family home to celebrate - an act of violence throws his clan into disarray.  While it is initially ruled a suicide, Blanc has been hired by a mysterious donor to investigate, and when he interviews the family and house staff, he finds that there are indeed some suspicious details.  Harlan had generated a considerable fortune from his writing, and motives for his untimely demise abound.  But as he finds subterfuge around every corner of the mansion, even Blanc's impressive skills are put to the test to solve this grisly case.

Knives Out has a star-studded cast, and the well-known players seem to be having a blast with their outsize characters.  While there's no clear lead, Daniel Craig's private detective Blanc is at the center of the action.  Similar to his role in Logan Lucky, Craig again shows that he can easily loosen up his acting - in a variety of ways - from the cool 007 he's best known for.  The British actor employs a heavy, sometimes exaggerated, southern drawl, and even as he shows a genial, innocent face to his nervous witnesses, he also has all the skills and attentiveness of a Poirot-style hero.  Craig seems like he might be having even more fun than anyone else, but I have to admit that his approach falls a bit too much into parody for me.  Great fun, but maybe a little too much.  The relatively plain house nurse Marta, played by Ana de Armas, is arguably the co-lead.  Unlike her co-stars, de Armas mostly plays it straight, except for a single incredible, ingenious tic.  A relative newcomer (after an impressive appearance in the Blade Runner sequel), de Armas may be disarmingly beautiful but fully inhabits her modest and quiet, while internally strong yet stressed character.  Chris Evans, famed as Captain America, also plays against type with his selfish, aloof yet calculating heir named Ransom.  Evans puts his considerable charisma to use for ill here, in particular via a scene-stealing, mid-film introduction.  Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Toni Collette, and Don Johnson are all great as proud siblings bickering over their inheritance - and grudges.  There are plenty of other, smaller roles that are intriguing, too, from Christopher Plummer as Harlan (in flashbacks), to the manipulative granddaughter played Katherine Langford.

Knives Out is a well-made, supremely entertaining new take on the whodunnit genre, thanks not only to its starry cast but also to a rising talent in the director's chair.  Rian Johnson has made just four other feature films including Looper, an excellent but under-the-radar sci-fi flick, and the radar-dominating - and highly polarizing - Star Wars: The Last Jedi.  He very much continues his path of subverting expectations in well-known genres; I think it works even better here, though I don't necessarily love all the individual elements (yet, anyway).  Things seem different right off the bat, as the usually crucial (and later-arriving) interrogation of suspects happens early; rather than letting the secret family histories trickle out slowly, as expected, I was jarred by how much is revealed so quickly.  Additionally, instead of slowly accumulating clues to the murder itself, we get the whole scene played out in the first half.  Thus, the film's main perspective (and therefore the audience's) is actually not Blanc's as the detective, but rather the culprit's, who I will SHOCKINGLY reveal to be lowly little Marta.  But that spoiler isn't as bad as it may seem.  I like the idea of this change of focus, but it personally made me squirm uncomfortably as I oddly began rooting against Blanc from figuring it all out.  The style and context of the film are perhaps just as important as the switcheroo Johnson pulls with the murder plot structure.  It's blatantly taking place amidst current events, and several of the characters reflect either individuals or groups (from Gwyneth Paltrow to social media pundits).  At the same time, much of the dialogue and even action is tongue in cheek or outright silly (from Blanc's hilarious fixation with donut analogies to the world's slowest care chase).  Your mileage will vary to the extent that you buy all this or enjoy it.  I found it hit or miss, but above all I appreciate the efforts of the filmmakers to try something new, providing a great time at the theater.

***

Knives Out is a strong film by itself, one of the year's better entries, but perhaps even more encouraging as a general direction for Hollywood to (hopefully) embrace.  It is a critical hit, its 97% score on Rotten Tomatoes almost unheard of for a genre film like this; audiences aren't flocking to it quite as well yet, with $27 million in the opening weekend, but a strong hold in the coming weeks could make it a financial success, too.  Admittedly, just like The Last Jedi, I wasn't sure how I felt about it as I walked out of the theater, as opposed to, say, Ford v Ferrari (on the positive) or Ad Astra (on the negative).  But I think that is mostly because Johnson is giving audiences films they haven't seen before.  Is it all for the better?  Probably not.  Still, as I harp on this blog regularly, trying new things is essential, in Hollywood as it is elsewhere.  I therefore look forward to seeing this again, hopefully soon, and encourage you to try it (or give it a second watch), too.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61197044

21 Bridges

Score:  B-

Directed by Brian Kirk
Starring Chadwick Boseman, Sienna Miller, Stephan James, J.K. Simmons
Running time: 110 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  21 Bridges is a cop thriller, but it demands attention well beyond that mere label due to the people attached to it.  Chadwick Boseman, now a full-fledged star, is very good in the lead role, and he's supported by quite a bit of other talent, from Sienna Miller to J.K. Simmons.  While this won't make for an enduring classic, the exciting first part of the film and committed performances throughout make it worth a try if you're in the mood.


When police officers are gunned down in a drug robbery gone wrong, detective Andre Davis (Boseman) is brought in in the wee hours of the night.  Davis is infamous as a cop-killer avenger, and after assessing the grisly scene, convinces both his department superiors and New York's mayor to shut down the island of Manhattan while he hunts down the culprits.  Despite having the full force of the NYPD at his disposal, Davis has just a few hours to exploit the trap he's set, and complicating factors - both personal and professional - put his skills to the test.

21 Bridges has an impressive cast, one that gives the film its life but is also restrained from using its full talent.  Chadwick Boseman plays the lead police detective, and he is a steady, compelling focus for this cop thriller.  Having played a variety of both well-known historical (Jackie Robinson, etc.) and otherwise powerful (Black Panther) characters, Boseman has an easy command of the screen.  His detective is a level-headed, talented and sympathetic hero, though the script could have thrown in a bit more vulnerability.  At any rate, he's believable and engaging in the role.  His partner, a narcotics agent, is played by Sienna Miller in a much grittier role than I've come to expect from the actress.  It took me some time to even recognize her, in fact, and she is quite committed to her hard-nosed, at times ruthless, character.  Makes for a good contrast with Boseman's Davis.  Stephan James plays a cop killer, who gets substantial screentime attempting to hideout and flee through the city.  He's portrayed fairly sympathetically, probably overly so, but he does a fine job.  J.K. Simmons gets the final significant role, as captain of the slain officers.  As expected he has an easy air of authority, and nicely shows the conflict between the grief and rage he feels at the crime and his sworn duties.  There are several other smaller roles, the only one worth mentioning being Alexander Siddig's criminal fixer, who makes his cliched role interesting.

Entertaining and solidly made, 21 Bridges doesn't nearly reach its full potential and so is a fine if disposable experience.  For a fairly formulaic movie, this has an impressively talented set of people behind it.  Along with the stars in the cast, it's produced by Anthony and Joe Russo, of Avengers fame, and directed by a newcomer to the big screen in Brian Kirk (who still has great experience with TV projects from Game of Thrones to Luther).  To the extent they're able, these filmmakers provide a gripping and absorbing trip to the theater.  Exposition and introduction is kept to a minimum, while still providing a bit of foreshadowing; it quickly jumps to the harrowing shoot out that triggers the frantic hunt lasting most of the rest of the film.  Tight and tense direction of these bloody scenes, followed by the urgency of Boseman and others in the minutes that follow, are the strongest, most intense in the film.  Unfortunately, Bridges can't maintain that energy and momentum.  There are a few exciting moments later, but the action is mostly predictable, plot- and dialogue-laden affairs (which the actors, again, make as good as they can).  Worse, it becomes apparent, sooner or later, that the whole endeavor is a bit empty.  I don't want to give many specifics, because in the moment excitement and revelations are the main draw here.  Most of the dialogue is decent, if perhaps a bit cliched, particularly later on, but still better than most of its peers.  But once you start thinking beyond the scene-to-scene view of the film, it's disappointingly thin.  As the dramatic stakes lower, the story becomes more formulaic, perhaps just trying to give the proceedings some meat, but of course this doesn't work out too well.  Still, the actors remain committed throughout, and the film does not drag out at all; as I've been writing, if anything you're left wanting a bit more.

***

21 Bridges is a fine film, a good change of pace in this season of Oscar contenders and blockbusters.  More and more, I feel that a film with talented people I enjoy is worth taking a risk even if it's lower-rated (21 Bridges has a borderline 50% Rotten Tomatoes score) or simply taking a different direction than I'm used to.  Produced by Anthony and Joe Russo, whose Avengers I enjoyed so much, and featuring one of today's brightest stars in Chadwick Boseman, I was definitely on board for this, even though I was less enthusiastic about other factors.  I wouldn't rush out to the theater to see this, but it makes a perfectly enjoyable experience if you aren't inspired by (or have already seen) other options.  I doubt I'll ever see this again, but I also don't regret seeing it once; worth giving it a try!




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60786447

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