Mini-Reviews: Marriage Story and Parasite

Mini-Reviews: Marriage Story and Parasite

With the Oscars coming up next weekend, I've decided to do something a little different with my final reviews for 2019 films.  Nearly every review I've written in the ten years I've been doing this blog has been based on a film I saw in the theater.  I don't remember why I started that way, but if anything I feel only more strongly about this "rule".  To me, a film should ideally be seen in a theater.  It allows you to be fully absorbed in the experience: a dark room, with just that big screen in front of you.  Some may find that their local theater tends to have distracting co-viewers (talking, using phones - argh!!!); luckily, with some rare exceptions, I don't have to put up with this.  On the other hand, a communal theater experience can enhance the film in unique ways - comedies especially benefit, as do certain others like the opening night of a long-awaited event (see: Avengers: Endgame).

However, I'm breaking my rule today.  Both Marriage Story and Parasite have multiple Oscar nominations - most importantly, both are up for Best Picture.  Both also had limited theater runs; between the two, I think Parasite may have been available to me for a single week (I decided, maybe unwisely, to see something else that week).  I've now seen both via streaming, so I thought I'd do shorter reviews for each.  So here are my last two films for 2019, and keep an eye out for my annual film-in-review and Oscar-like awards posts next week!

-----

Marriage Story
Directed by Noah Baumbach
Starring Scarlett Johansson, Adam Driver, Laura Dern, Alan Alda
Running time: 136 minutes
Rated R

Marriage Story is a searing and insightful examination of the end of a marriage, with some very potent acting performances.  Despite the overall premise, it's actually not a dark or grim film.  In fact, the director wisely chooses to start the film with each character listing their spouse's good qualities, part of a counseling exercise that sees them trying to resolve things amicably in spite of their mutual frustration.  The situation degenerates, of course, to increase the tension and drama.  Johansson and Driver are magnificent at showing the natural, gradual evolution of the relationship at this final hour.  Each gets to showcase how they are processing it as individuals - Johansson rehashing her entire story to a lawyer, Driver struggling through a parent evaluation - in impressive, extended sequences.  But they're even better when together, ranging from quietly showing the final, worn out embers of their connection, to a confrontation whose physical intensity is surpassed by the agonizing - yet cathartic - words themselves.  Dern's smooth and protective lawyer, and Alda's sweet yet helpless one are both great, too.  Despite the mutual wounds, the ending finds a quiet grace, however.  Spoiler alert: they don't get back together.  But just as it showed a natural escalation of emotions and grievances earlier, Marriage Story also shows the quiet healing power of time.  Excellent.

Score:  A

_____

Parasite
Directed by Bong Joon-ho
Starring Choi Woo-shik, Park So-dam, Song Kang-ho, Cho Yeo-jeong

Parasite is an inventive film, well-crafted and performed, but I was disappointed by some creative and narrative choices, leaving it short of its potential.  This is a Korean film, and as such has sub-titles (like last year's Mexican Roma); I'm personally fine with this, though I do feel some elements of a film are inevitably lost in, well, translation.  Wikipedia describes it as a "dark comedy thriller", which seems odd but is pretty accurate; moreso, it starts as one type of film and then turns suddenly into another.  Parasite's protagonists are a poor family, the Kims, teenaged son and daughter and their parents.  Daily life searching for wifi signals and chasing away public, er, relievers, the first part is hilarious if uncomfortably so.  The children soon find an opportunity to turn their family's fortunes, however, and show themselves quite clever and resourceful; meanwhile a new, wealthy family comes along, the Parks, who are amusingly naive to ordinary life.  All seems to be going well, yet one dark and stormy night, things unravel rapidly upon the ring of a door bell.  The transition itself is done quite well, totally unexpected and creepy, yet somehow also uproarious in its own way.  Unfortunately, the film, for me, declines after this pivotal part.  Think along the lines of Get Out, but the trick is not an appropriate fit here.  Parasite does great work setting up some interesting social commentary over its first half, but in choosing to adopt more extreme, fantastical symbolism later, I found the themes to blur in favor of style.  Still, certainly a thought-provoking film worth a try.

Score:  B+




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61570092
** By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=62809787

Jumanji: The Next Level

Score:  B

Directed by Jake Kasdan
Starring Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan, Jack Black, Danny DeVito, Danny Glover
Running Time: 123 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Jumanji: The Next Level is the expected follow-up to the surprisingly effective 2017 action reboot - and, surprise once again, it's not an empty money grab.  The filmmakers kept as much of the original intact as they dared, but any concerns about that are sidelined by Johnson and Hart pulling a new imitation scheme, this time as grumpy old men.  Not as fresh as the 2017 film, but it's often just as hilarious, and the action to the bits of drama are made with just as much care.  Recommended.


Young friends Spencer, Fridge, Martha, and Bethany have graduated and drifted apart, but plan a reunion when they all return to their hometown.  Spencer, however, yearns for the excitement and empowerment of his magical - if dangerous - experience in the Jumanji video game, and so he returns.  His friends suspect what happened and attempt to follow him back, but the game has a glitch and they find themselves in new "avatars" - and joined by unexpected guests.  Once again, the group is confronted with a crisis in this imaginary world with very real consequences, and it is up to them to save the day.  This time, of course, they are also looking for their lost friend, and they'll need every bit of the skill and courage they developed last time to win again.

The core cast of the Jumanji reboot of 2017 returns, and is joined by several fun and familiar faces.  Dwayne Johnson is the lead again, with a twist: for a significant part of the film, he is representing Danny DeVito's character rather than Spencer.  His attempt at the DeVito accent is unsurprisingly mediocre and inconsistent, but he seems to enjoy playing the curmudgeon, and this check on his usual tough-guy persona is once again a welcome trait.  Kevin Hart, likewise, gets to mimic Danny Glover, affecting his esteemed but hoarse and oft-confused character.  Hart does better than his co-lead, but the interplay between the two - DeVito and Glover are old friends, and Johnson and Hart pick up that element better than anything else - is even funnier, and more interesting, than that of the first film.  Jack Black gets to do Fridge this time, and while he's still good it's not riotous like in the first (it's also a little uncomfortable, at the least, to watch a middle-aged white guy mimicking a young black man).  Karen Gillan gets to be Martha again like last time, but she gets a much more bland part this time, unfortunately.  Nick Jonas, returning from the first film, and Awkwafina are also Jumanji characters in smaller roles, the latter of whom is a nice if underutilized addition.  DeVito and Glover are briefly in the film themselves, of course, and their simple presence helps lift the early, introductory parts.  The young actors get less to do this time, instead maximizing the time spent in the Jumanji video game; while understandable, since the characters have already been introduced, they are capable of doing more.

Jumanji is the best kind of sequel you can reasonably expect, keeping the best qualities of the original while mixing up the details enough to keep it pretty fresh.  The overall structure is basically the same as 2017's Welcome to the Jungle - brief drama with young friends in the real world, entering the video game world using adult avatars, and fulfilling a standard adventure quest while rescuing a missing real-world companion.  This works out alright, though they definitely need something new if/when they do another one.  Rather than shake up the plot structure, they reshuffled the specifics, most significantly in the franchise's key concept of Hollywood-star avatars representing the characters in Jumanji.  As already mentioned, the modern day star duo of Johnson-Hart imitating DeVito and Glover is comedy gold.  The film's second act, upon re-entering Jumanji, is particularly good, with Johnson and Hart's "Smolder Bravestone" and "Mouse Finbar" bickering and generally being awed and confused by their new, younger bodies and the mysteries of the video game world.  Sadly, they don't stay that way through the whole film, but it's worth the cost of admission itself.  While the missing-person quest in the first is played as a mystery, The Next Level opts for the search for a main character you already know (though for me the Johnson-Hart antics overrode this and any other "plot" elements).  The action, like in the first, really is secondary.  While it does a better job at traditional blockbuster action, via desert ostrich chases and rope bridge escapes, it's not as clever at making it seem like a video game world being "played".  The sequel also interestingly pushes the kid characters aside in favor of their elders.  It's a pretty basic feud, as you'd expect, but it doesn't get swallowed up by the action of the climax, and resolves nicely.  The bad guys don't pose much of a threat, but focus on the struggles of the individuals and conflicts among friends is even better.

***

Jumanji: The Next Level is hardly groundbreaking, but it is the way Hollywood should be making more of its blockbusters.  After thoroughly enjoying the surprise hit Welcome to the Jungle in 2017, I was pretty much automatically onboard for the sequel.  As much as I gripe about Hollywood relying too much on sequels and reboots, they can still be done well when they retain the elements that made the original special while mixing up other parts enough to make it also feel new.  It's a difficult balance, and why so many attempts fail.  The Zombieland sequel earlier this year succeeded for many of the same reasons that The Next Level does.  I would rather watch either of those films again than a lot of "original" Hollywood blockbuster trash, let alone something from the growing pile of lifeless reboots/sequels (I'm looking at you, Men In Black: International).  Hopefully Johnson and Hart will keep making movies together; though if more Jumanjis are among them, I'd like to warn them to tread those waters carefully.



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61874882

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