American Fiction

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Cord Jefferson

Starring Jeffrey Wright, Tracee Ellis Ross, Sterling K. Brown, Issa Rae

Running time: 117 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  American Fiction is director Cord Jefferson's first film but it's a good one, portraying both the wild and the domestic events in the life of a Black writer.  A brilliant cast breathes life into both the writer's family world - siblings, declining mother, and more - and his unexpected evolution from unknown academic to sensational best-selling author.  It's a little uneven, but that's more than compensated for by the performances and its thoughtfulness.  Highly recommended. 

Thelonious "Monk" Ellison (Wright) is a brilliant writer and teacher, but also a lonely and frustrated one.  Although his books receive literary praise, they don't sniff the best-seller lists, and he is asked to take a break from the university after his tension boils over in the classroom.  He returns to his hometown of Boston where he reconnects with siblings Lisa (Ellis) and Cliff (Brown) and his mother, Agnes (Uggams).  A sudden tragedy keeps Monk around longer than expected and, with large bills looming, grudgingly attempts a more popular writing style.  Monk feels both his personal and professional lives transforming rapidly and out of his control, and he'll have to choose what to fight - and what to accept.

American Fiction is a creative, well-made, and entertaining drama, though some dissonance in the film's tone and themes holds it back a little.  The story is straightforward drama, refreshingly ordinary in some ways. While focused on Monk, the film keeps momentum by alternating (imperfectly; more on this later) between his very realistic family life and his extraordinary professional life.  The personal side is the film's strongest element.  Monk and his family are Black, but most details of their relationships and living conditions are standard American; race is not really relevant.  It's serious, complex drama, with genuine characters and dynamics and great interactions among Monk, Lisa, Cliff, Agnes, and more.  The acting is tremendous, with Brown's Cliff and Uggam's Agnes being scene stealers.  The professional side of the story is much different: Monk's academic writer borders on caricature, disdainful of the "lower" art that gets all the attention.  There is plenty of humor here and some outrageous scenes and twists; it's almost Judd Apatow-like at times.  With such different strands to blend, the ending is impressively cohesive.  Demonstrating life's messiness, it doesn't really resolve the personal or professional concerns. There's also some sly ambiguity, especially with the fate of Monk's best-seller scheme gone awry.

American Fiction is multifaceted and keeps you thinking, but it falters a bit in its ambitious plans.  The significant difference in tone between Monk's personal and professional lives can be jarring.  While it's good to have variety, this back-and-forth also dampens the effectiveness of each side.  It makes sense to have humor and even some shock value as Monk awkwardly tries to pivot from his scholarly ambition to a pragmatic but unpleasant (to him) pop style.  It's also good to expose the hypocrisy and absurdity of white people's embrace - yet condescension - of black culture and artists.  But the movie didn't have to be so hyperbolic to achieve this, I feel, and so it missed out on a more cutting edge it could have provided.  It is certainly still (cringingly) funny, though.

American Fiction is not trying to perfectly mirror today's cultural/artistic world, but it's close enough that the differences are disorienting.  Black Ebonics and 'hood life books are both best-sellers and critically praised here.  Monk loathes this not just because he feels his (and similar) works are superior art but because the best-sellers simply cater to pandering white expectations of stereotypical Black culture.  Monk believes - rightly - that Black culture is both much richer and more varied.  I agree with Monk, even though, as he acknowledges, there is also obviously value in communicating genuine Black experiences of poverty, violence, discrimination, too.  So the movie makes literary culture into kind of a "straw man": but in real life, there is plenty of excellent, rich literature by Black writers that is both popular and deservingly lauded by critics.  There's some use to critiquing Black and other cultural "trauma porn" but I wish American Fiction had gone further, even if only briefly, to highlight the bigger problem: that white America feels content with supporting Black artists and expressing guilt, but is not willing to take substantive action to support Black communities through voting rights, economic and educational opportunity, and so on.  But maybe that's for a different movie.

***

Two weeks in a row now my local theater has played Oscar Best Picture nominees - a great treat for a dreary January!  I had heard little of American Fiction before, other than seeing it get rave reviews in an issue of The Week (aside: that is an excellent news digest magazine, I highly recommend it!).  It's a return to great movies from Black filmmakers that were so prevalent in the mid-2010s but seemed to peter out a bit in recent years.  In that way, American Fiction is a little "meta" in its story, and while I don't think it did so perfectly, it's important that it continues the discussion.  So I hope that you get a chance to see this in a theater, too, as Oscar season continues to count down to the March 10 ceremony.  Until next time!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2023/american_fiction_ver2_xxlg.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75101757

Poor Things

 

Score:  A

Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Emma Stone, Willem Dafoe, Mark Ruffalo, Ramy Youssef

Running time: 142 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Poor Things is a top Oscar contender, a wild un-categorizable adventure from the creative mind of Yorgos Lanthimos (The Lobster, The Favourite).  You can call it a retelling of Frankenstein, but that only skims the surface.  Emma Stone gives a great, wide-ranging performance as the "monster" in leading a movie that engages the senses but also will keep you thinking long after it's over.  Highly recommended.

In 19th century London, a medical student, Max, (Youssef) struggles for the attention of a doctor he admires, named Godwin (Dafoe).  Godwin finally hires Max as his assistant to take notes on an experiment he is conducting with a young woman named Bella (Stone).  Bella behaves very strangely and Max discovers that Godwin keeps a horrifying secret about her.  Bella undergoes rapid changes, however, and insists on leaving the confines of Godwin's home to explore the world.  While her companions don't always have the best intentions, Bella nevertheless continues to grow as she embraces her independence.

Poor Things is an odd but impressive film, taking inspiration from both old and new movie traditions to create a uniquely entertaining and thought-provoking experience.  The basic plot is a modern take on Frankenstein and while it certainly has some elements of horror, the main focus is on the "monster"'s development into a human being.  Bella has a long way to go: in the very first scene, she bangs away discordantly (also setting the horror mood) on a piano.  The first act is in black-and-white, which seems to evoke both the old monster movies as well as Bella's more primitive state.  On a small, room-level scale, the movie features realistic sets, but wider shots reveal a much more fantasy, even doll- or dream-like world.  This balance helps you to somehow both take the drama and characters seriously while also realizing it's really a conceptual exercise - tricky to do, but it worked (for me).  The visuals are also interesting in and of themselves, reminding me a little of Wes Anderson.  Still, I admit that I didn't like the movie a lot early on: even though I found Bella's bizarre behavior fascinating - particularly Stone's impressive physical performance - it leans more heavily on the horror, with all its characters feeling menacing and/or mysterious (most of them come to show at least a slightly softer side later on).

Once Bella leaves London with her questionable lawyer companion, Duncan, however, the movie really takes off.  Duncan is smooth but sleazy, and at first you fear that he'll take advantage of Bella.  However, after introducing Bella to the carnal pleasures of the world - from sex to great food to exotic cultures and locales - he soon finds that she is impossible to control.  This is where the movie's humor really flowers; while there's a bit of gloomy humor earlier, the combination of Ruffalo's loutish/buffoonish Duncan with Stone's ever more aware yet startlingly blunt Bella is often hilarious.  While sailing on a cruise ship, Bella learns more about the world around her, too, and is deeply moved, intellectually and morally, by philosophy and poverty.  When the cruise joy ride comes to a sudden end, the learning and laughs continue.  Bella, as much out of curiosity as necessity, tries out prostitution in Paris (yes, there is a LOT of sex in Poor Things.  But it's neither gratuitous, nor patronizingly silly).  The experience offers yet more growth for Bella, especially in the close relationships she forms with some co-workers.  Ultimately Poor Things can be seen as a fantastical yet potent feminist story as Bella discovers and embraces the joys and power of womanhood while also facing many of its obstacles.  I was especially intrigued by the masculine obstacles: the final one involves Bella delaying her "happily ever after" in order to glimpse her previous life and lover.  The horrific truth is soon revealed, and she quickly serves the bastard his just deserts before returning to the life path she deserves.

***

Poor Things has received quite a few Oscar nominations and when I found that it was coming to my theater, I jumped at the chance to see it.  The director's previous efforts, plus the opening parts of this one, made me a bit hesitant, despite their potential.  Yorgos Lanthimos is one of the most interesting filmmakers working today, but an uneven one: The Lobster was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but The Favourite was quite interesting.  Poor Things is his best yet, and I like it better the more I think about it and write this review.  I think it does an especially great job of straddling multiple tricky lines: it's both vivid and unique in its presentation, while retaining a solid, watchable structure; it's also both subtle in many of its themes and character works but also refreshingly direct and clear.  I strongly recommend it for any adults - be prepared for the plentiful sex scenes and a few gross bits - but it's a unique and rewarding experience.

* By Searchlight Pictures - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73929537

Aquaman 2: The Lost Kingdom

 

Score:  B

Directed by James Wan

Starring Jason Mamoa, Patrick Wilson, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II

Running time: 124 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Aquaman 2 is a nice follow-up to the 2018 original, with Jason Mamoa as entertaining as ever in the lead and plenty of fun action.  The plot is nothing new, but the movie does well to add a few neat wrinkles and often execute the well-worn ideas nicely.  It's a good-natured movie with lots of laughs, and it's probably your last chance to see this particular world in theaters.  Recommended for those looking for a nice blockbuster in the depth of winter.

Arthur (Mamoa), better known as Aquaman, struggles to juggle two very different roles: king of the powerful underwater nation of Atlantis, and father to a young human boy growing up on the coast.  As he attempts to keep it all together, an old nemesis, David Kane (Abdul-Mateen II), relentlessly searches for ways to exact revenge on him.  Kane, aka Black Manta, stumbles upon the remains of another, long-forgotten underwater kingdom, and with it the power to challenge Arthur and Atlantis.  Kane's power has become so great, and the threat to the world so high, that Arthur reluctantly turns to his half-brother - and former deadly rival - Orm (Wilson) for help.

Aquaman 2 is a solid, fun superhero movie, though somewhat anticlimactic considering it's (partially) the end of a major Hollywood era.  The story is fairly typical superhero adventure stuff, although it does get off to an impressive start by emphasizing the ridiculous yet charming duality of Arthur/Aquaman's roles: as both leader of Atlantis and father of a regular human baby.  Both of these are sources of great pride and joy, but each is quite challenging, with some amusing scenes of Aquaman dozing off in committee meetings and getting bombarded with various substances by his young son.  The villainous plot is fairly derivative: Kane/Black Manta seeking revenge on the hero and resurrecting a forgotten yet powerful civilization to do so.  But I was both surprised and impressed that the villain's plot is also directly tied to climate change - a real crisis!  It's fantasy-heightened, of course, but still great to see it featured so prominently in a blockbuster (and hopefully will help get more people to pay a bit more attention in the real world... OK, off my soap box!).  Manta also gets some interesting henchmen who get at least as much screen time as he does.  Aquaman doesn't bring his baby boy along on his adventures, of course, but instead turns to his brother, Orm, who he defeated in the first movie.  Again, there's plenty of familiarity to this dynamic, but it's still well done.  They have distinct, well-matched personas and the actors have good chemistry and engaged performances.  It also doesn't devolve into a revolting macho contest like the Fast & Furious movies.  Finally, there's plenty of fireworks action and humor throughout, making it an ideal theater movie.  Little of the action stands out from its peers, admittedly, but it also doesn't go overboard or become numbing, and there's good variety and interesting visuals to enjoy.  After defeating the villain, Arthur begins a hopeful first contact with humanity, and makes a nice tip of the hat to a superhero founding father, Iron Man, as a final sign off.

The release of Aquaman 2 also marks the end of what's been called the DC Extended Universe, a series of films that began with 2013's Man of Steel.  To me, the DCEU was always the Pepsi to Marvel's Coca-Cola, or the DreamWorks to Marvel's Pixar.  Still, I enjoyed most of the movies, and feel that the criticism it received often went too far.  The crucial moment came early, with the second movie, Batman vs Superman.  I was skeptical about this before I saw it, too, but I was actually impressed.  It's by no means perfect, but it has an interesting visual and tonal style that - crucially - was vastly different from Marvel, which had already conquered Hollywood, not just the genre.  After its panning by critics, though, DC quickly responded by essentially trying to copy Marvel.  This worked fine a few times, especially with the great Wonder Woman movie and, to a lesser extent, the first Aquaman.  But it also led to Justice League, a disastrous attempt to copy the Avengers and its superhero team.  Later, there were some other decent successes - I particularly liked the Harley Quinn spin-off, Birds of Prey - but also flops like Black Adam.  DC simply could never seem to decide how to approach its superhero movies, and ended up throwing everything at the wall to see what stuck.  It practically regurgitated its final four movies in 2023, as if to cleanse the system before - sigh - rebooting again.

***

We're now pivoting to a new era for the superhero genre, what has become probably my favorite and has certainly been the most successful in Hollywood over the last fifteen years.  But it's a very uncertain pivot, with many in the media predicting the genre's imminent decline.  Even Marvel appears - to some - to be in trouble after a disappointing 2023 (even I'll admit that it was a down year).  I believe the genre still has plenty of creative possibility left, though scaling back the output is probably a good idea.  Marvel has shown the rich story and character development potential of interconnecting its movies as if it's a gigantic TV - or comic book - series.  But it must still do so carefully and thoughtfully, seeing how the current narrative (i.e., the movies after Avengers: Endgame) has gone somewhat adrift.  For DC, who knows - it would be nice for them to take a breather for a few years, but if there's money to be made, they'll be back at it sooner.

* By IMDb, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68072093

The Holdovers

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Alexander Payne

Starring Paul Giamatti, Dominic Sessa, Da'Vine Joy Randolph

Running time: 133 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Holdovers is good old-fashioned filmmaking, a holiday dramedy featuring a great cast with star Paul Giamatti and two relative unknowns.  There are plenty of chuckles and good feelings to be found as Giamatti's grouchy teacher gradually gives in to the influence of his fellow boarding school shut-ins.  Highly recommended for all adults (not sure why it's rated R, though).

As the holidays approach, the boys at Barton boarding school are filled with excitement - all, except for those who are unable to go home and must stay at school, like Angus (Sessa).  Only a skeleton staff remains to oversee the handful of students, including unlucky faculty representative Paul Hunham (Giamatti), an unpopular grouch who believes he is being punished by the school's director.  Hunham subjects Angus and the other boys to a regimented schedule, killing any remaining holiday cheer they cling to.  Over time, though, as Hunham, Angus, and the school's head cook, Mary (Randolph) get to know each other, a grudging respect builds as they try to make the best of their sour situations.

The Holdovers is an old-fashioned and solid, heartfelt holiday dramedy thanks to a cast with great performances and chemistry.  The story and style hark back to simpler, more earnest filmmaking days, focusing on the relationships of three people unhappily stuck together for the holidays.  This, along with the strong cast and effective script, allows for nice, wholesome sentiment throughout the film, with satisfying moments and mood changes throughout.  It's not all happily-ever-after but the holiday setting helps keep spirits up even in the difficult moments.  There is also plenty of good humor: maybe not belly laughs - the film is too gentle for those - but still effective thanks largely to the cast.  Those actors do a remarkable job, primarily the three leads.  They each get a certain amount of depth but the film doesn't strain itself trying to be too intricate or dissonant (again, this is old-fashioned).  Giamatti, long an excellent performer, is basically a perfect fit for the role of curmudgeonly faculty member - yet as believable as he is, he's never too off-putting and builds quite a bit of genuine sympathy for himself as the film goes on.  Sessa and Randolph, as the restless teen holdover and the wise head cook, respectively, both help Giamatti's Paul develop in crucial ways.  But they're far from just plot devices: they, too, each get well-drawn characters with both tragic family backstories as well as senses of humor rivaling Giamatti's.  The cast and strong, traditional filmmaking style make The Holdovers a great holiday treat, but it does have some weaker points that hold it back a bit.  The running time is a little excessive at two hours fifteen minutes; two hours, or even less, probably would have been plenty.  And for all the strengths of the movie's style, it also falls prey at times to its drawbacks via some stilted or awkward dialogue and events.  But I'm nitpicking: this is a very nice holiday film whose sentiment will stick with you for some time.

***

The Holdovers is just the kind of film I hope to see in theaters - but can't count on - this time of year.  It's far from a box office juggernaut, with a paltry $17 million so far, but it has received well-deserved (as I can now confirm) critical praise and awards buzz.  I particularly enjoyed its old-fashioned filmmaking; while I certainly don't want every movie to be like this, it was a nice change of pace.  Really, it would be so nice to simply see more high quality dramas, or dramedies, like this released in theaters throughout the year.  We'll see if some more pleasant surprises come to the theater soon.  A glance at the showtimes reveals very little else of interest to me, for now!  Check out The Holdovers if you're lucky enough to have it in a theater near you.

* By Focus Features - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74995266

Napoleon

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby

Running time: 157 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Napoleon is the latest film from Ridley Scott, a well-made epic starring Joaquin Phoenix that showcases the French general's massive if fleeting impact on European history.  Scott brings his blockbuster-scale talents to the movie's gripping, creative battle scenes, while Phoenix also shares quieter yet still intense scenes with Napoleon's wife, Josephine.  It's a little too sprawling to be an all-time great but it's still very entertaining and highly recommended for most adult audiences.

Napoleon tells the extraordinary tale of the rise and fall of the (in)famous French general and Emperor, from 1793 to 1821.  Napoleon (Phoenix) begins his journey near the end of the French Revolution as an army officer who rises through the ranks due to his success both repelling foreign intruders as well as suppressing further rebellions against France's new leaders.  As he is introduced to new groups of the wealthy, influential, and powerful in France, Napoleon meets Josephine (Kirby), with whom he immediately falls in love and eventually marries.  Napoleon's battlefield genius leads to both France's and his own power steadily increasing, but even he finds there are limits in life, from the most personal to the grandest scales.

Napoleon is an intense and riveting historical epic with strong action and acting, but it's held back from greatness by a combination of too much scope with too little understanding.  The famed director Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Alien, etc.) showcases his talent for creating vivid, fascinating historical worlds, from the violent battles to the fancy dinners to the commoners on the street.  Unlike many historical epics, though, Napoleon has plenty of rougher-around-the-edges, if not outright uncouth moments, from bad manners to unexpected and/or informal language among the leaders and aristocrats to, well, several unshy sex scenes.  Along with providing a subtle, sly sense of humor sprinkled through the film, these moments highlight Napoleon's unusual position in places of power; he doesn't ever truly seem to belong.  Phoenix, who played the villain in Gladiator, is unsurprisingly great as the title lead.  He makes Napoleon just human and semi-sympathetic enough to want to follow, yet also brimming with ego, temper, and brutality that often bursts forth.  Kirby is also great as Josephine in a surprisingly large role.  She is both co- and independent with Napoleon, strong yet fragile and flawed, too.  There is a large cast of side characters, adding nice color to the film but little importance to the main characters.  Finally, there's also plenty of jaw-dropping action, befitting the story of one of history's greatest generals.  Three primary battles stand out, from a sneaky nighttime raid on a port city; to a virtuosic winter scene composed of a giant, horrifying trap; to Napoleon's grand fall at Waterloo.

Unfortunately, while Napoleon is good, even great, in many individual scenes, it could have been even more potent if it had better focus.  The movie takes place across roughly twenty-five years - which is a long time in an ordinary life, let alone one as busy as Napoleon's.  The running time is neither rushed nor drawn out - a bit past two-and-a-half hours - with about two-thirds devoted to his battles and political roles and the other third to Josephine and other personal scenes.  I have little problem with any of what does make it on screen, there are two concerning shortcomings.  First, there is just so much internal French politics and external foreign relations that are critical to Napoleon's life, yet so little time to explain it; even as a history major myself, I only knew the basic outlines.  Focusing more on one specific period in the larger story probably would have helped, a la Lincoln or Selma.  Second, while the Josephine relationship is interesting, there's not nearly enough on Napoleon's own background and character.  Quite simply, why did he do what he did?  Just because he could?  What motivated and drove him?  For me, there weren't good enough answers to these questions.

***

While Napoleon seems like a natural Oscar-buzz type movie, I'm not sure that it actually is a Best Picture contender among critics.  Still, it was fun to go see this kind of historical epic in the theater again.  I would hope that other filmmakers considering similar projects will take notes on its many strengths - while also making sure that they try to dig into their central characters as well as possible.  I'm not sure exactly what to expect at the theater in the next month or two.  There are relatively few big holiday blockbusters this year - at least, ones I'm interested in (no thanks, Wonka).  So hopefully theaters near me will bring in some interesting smaller ones, including those that hope to be up for awards soon.  Until next time!

* By https://www.apple.com/tv-pr/originals/napoleon/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74312765

The Marvels

 

Score:  B

Directed by Nia DaCosta

Starring Brie Larson, Iman Vellani, Teyonah Parris, Samuel L. Jackson

Running time: 105 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short: The Marvels is the latest chapter in the MCU superhero saga, both a sequel to Captain Marvel and also a cinematic introduction to Kamala Khan and Monica Rambeau (first seen on Disney+).  The plot may be hard to follow for the casual movie-goer, but it satisfyingly continues and/or resolves multiple threads from the broader superhero universe.  Still, it's good fun for anyone, thanks to great work from the cast and entertaining (but not overstuffed) action scenes.  Recommended for any superhero fans, and anyone else looking for a nice blockbuster.

When the powerful alien civilization known as the Kree hatches a new plot, three of Earth's superheroes - Carol Danvers (Larson), Kamala Khan (Vellani), and Monica Rambeau (Parris) - find themselves inexplicably switching places with each other.  Carol, aka Captain Marvel, has been in deep space on her ship conducting missions; Kamala, aka Ms. Marvel, has been struggling through high school in New Jersey; and Monica, no nickname, works with Nick Fury (Jackson) in a space station orbiting Earth.  The Kree leader, Dar-Benn, is trying to restore her devastated homeworld by any means necessary, and placing the entire universe in danger as a result.  Carol, Kamala, and Monica must therefore figure out a way to stop her before it's too late.

The Marvels is a very entertaining superhero movie and a worthy next step on the Marvel Cinematic Universe's (MCU) famously interconnected path of films.  It's not among the franchise's top-tier films, but there's still lots of fun to be had for both Marvel fans and newcomers alike.  If you are a Marvel fan who has kept up with not only the movies but the Disney+ streaming series of the last few years, you'll get quite a bit more out of this (and feel a lot less confused).  The Marvels is not just a sequel to 2019's Captain Marvel, which introduced Carol Danvers, but it also continues plots and characters from Ms. Marvel, WandaVision, and Secret Invasion, not to mention including the multiverse again as a key part of the plot.  That might all sound exhausting, but I believe even "newbies" will enjoy this movie, if you just relax and not try to understand all the plot points.  All things considered, the script does an impressive job tying it all together in intriguing and (mostly) comprehensible ways - and in a very reasonable hour and forty-five minutes.  While I can get frustrated when plots like this veer too far from the superheroes themselves, the movie does a particularly nice job of integrating the fates of two alien races - the Kree and the Skrulls - who were deeply affected by events in Captain Marvel and Secret Invasion.  The tone of the movie, which is mostly fun and light-hearted, doesn't allow it to address them perfectly, but I give Marvel credit for continuing to pay close attention to the collateral effects and aftermath of superheroic events (see Captain America: Civil War, Avengers Endgame, and more).

Apart from the intricate plot, there is a lot of visual fun and humor here, too.  The primary theme, which is clear in several trailers/ads, is the superhero place-switching.  This provides both striking visuals and humor, particularly in the initial extended action sequence.  Wide-ranging - from a cramped, sterile space station to the Khan's increasingly-shredded living room - it has a frenetic pacing that keeps you glued to the screen and tests your ability to follow but is not overwhelming.  The final battle is also quite cool - not groundbreaking but also modest and brief enough to fully take in and enjoy.  There's also humor throughout; two elements in particular verge close to too silly - one involving a literal superhero musical scene and the other Captain Marvel's voraciously hungry cat - but both manage to hold it together.

Finally, the characters of The Marvels are worth discussing, as in any Marvel movie worth its salt.  Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel, played by Larson, is the lead, and I'd looked forward to a sequel giving her character more opportunity after 2019's original gave us disappointingly little.  We still get little on her background, and thus her motivation, unfortunately; I think the ship has sailed here.  But Larson still gives Carol a nice, distinctive personality that is fun to watch: Tony Stark's sarcastic intelligence, Steve Rogers' sense of duty and caring, yet with a vulnerability and imperfection that is needed considering her superpowers are so strong.  Vellani as Kamala is just as charismatic as she was on Ms. Marvel, even though she is sharing the lead here.  Her spunky cheer is just what the movie needed, and it's also great to see her immigrant Pakistani family continue to play a significant role.  Parris's Monica gets the short end, not really surprising considering she had just a small role on WandaVision before this.  There's not much to her character or personality, and is honestly most important for her relationship to Carol (who was best friends with her mom... long story!).  But the ending leaves opportunity for much more.  The main actors are the film's strongest point and their chemistry and team dynamics in particular were an interesting new version of what the Avengers introduced eleven years ago.

***

Usually, the movies I score a "B" get my shortest reviews - they are neither fantastic nor terrible, with all that allows me to write about.  The Marvels is, thankfully, not a boring good-enough but bland, unambitious movie.  It has some great strengths to it, but it's also weighed down by the combination of them all, along with being a little rough around the edges occasionally.  Still, it's the best addition to the MCU in 2023, what has been a down year (well, I haven't seen all of Loki season 2 yet, though the first episode left me a bit dazed and wary of continuing).  Critics and commentators have been quick to pounce, especially since The Marvels crashed at the box office with a (relatively) miserable $45 million opening weekend.  Sure, there is definitely some superhero fatigue; and following the show-stopping, biggest-movie-of-all-time Avengers finale in 2019, it's been impossible to match those previous heights.  But the new era, which started with streaming in the midst of the pandemic, has many strengths, too, just of a different kind.  I will most definitely be continuing to follow Marvel's stories, on both the big and small screens, for the foreseeable future.  For now, there will still hopefully be plenty of other good things to see at the theater in the coming months!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2023/marvels_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73059469

Killers of the Flower Moon

 

Score:  A

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone

Running time: 206 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Killers of the Flower Moon is famed director Martin Scorsese's latest film, based on the best-selling and widely praised book.  Unfolding over a formidable 200+ minutes, Scorsese manages to keep audiences rapt throughout thanks to a brutal yet fascinating murderous plot and a set of phenomenal performances from standbys DiCaprio and De Niro and newcomer Gladstone.  It earns the awards hype - recommended for all adults, just beware there is plenty of bloodshed.

In 1919, World War I veteran Ernest (DiCaprio) moves to the Osage reservation in Oklahoma where his brother, Byron, and uncle Hale (De Niro) live.  The Osage have been surrounded by a large white community, thanks to the massive oil field discovered on their land; courts have required the Osage (deemed "incompetent") to work with white men to manage their oil revenue.  Ernest, in his job as a local driver, meets an Osage woman named Mollie, and they soon marry.  While they enjoy their lives together, alongside Mollie's family of sisters and others, a number of disturbing mysterious Osage deaths rock the community.  The riches of the land have driven some bad people to horrific crimes, and Ernest is soon forced to choose between the people he loves.

Killers of the Flower Moon is an excellent historical crime drama, superbly acted and plotted to keep you engaged throughout despite an unusually long running time.  The movie is not for the faint of heart, though: it does not shy away from white men's brutality against the Osage tribe.  Scorsese is not gratuitous, like Tarantino, in his images, but there is still plenty of cold-blooded violence and an omnipresent awareness of the despicable, often breathtaking, plots to deceive and loot the Osage.  Still, I did not find Killers to be an overwhelmingly dark movie - personally, I found it far more bearable than the much less violent Power of the Dog, for example.  It is very serious and realistic, but it is certainly no documentary (despite the historical roots) and even sprinkles in some much-needed humor here and there, usually based on Ernest's stupidity.  As riveting and hair-raising as the first three-quarters of the film is, the tone shifts gears for the final act as the wheels of justice finally - blessedly - kick in.  This part often trips up similar films; as cathartic as it is for the bad guys to get caught, it's too often done inartfully (as is the case in the recent streamer The Burial).  Here, the BOI (early version of FBI) does its job methodically and straightforward but it's in the same realistic, restrained tone as the rest of the film.

Bringing all of this to life is a tremendous cast, both the main characters as well as the supporting cast.  Leonardo DiCaprio turns in another great performance as Ernest, the lead, a white man who becomes closer to the Osage tribe than most.  He is technically a villain, yet so well developed and nuanced, thanks to both writing and acting, that he feels fully human and so at least somewhat sympathetic.  His love for his wife also feels real, and his agony over the conflicts this causes are some of the film's most poignant.  He is also a simple man, though occasional moments of cunning seem out of character; maybe that is realistic, too, though?  Robert De Niro, a frequent muse of Scorsese, also does typically great work, here a patriarch of not only his family but also the community.  I don't think it's too much a spoiler to reveal that he is the true villain of the movie responsible for virtually all the evil done (even if others carry it out).  That he ingratiates himself so effectively on the Osage tribe makes him all the more vile.  Lily Gladstone as Mollie is at least as good as those two superstars - but she does so through amazingly understated performance.  She has very little dialogue, yet communicates so much through her eyes and expressions; she is a perfect symbol of why many white men mistook indigenous people like her as simple "incompetents", yet she is so smart, strong, and capable.  One of the film's weaker points is its relative lack of development of her character, but Gladstone's acting still makes it a vital role.  Finally, I did not really mind the long running time of the movie, although it could certainly have been shorter.  Still, I can't blame Scorsese for keeping the length generous.

***

Killers of the Flower Moon was a great way to kick off the unofficial start of Oscar movie season.  Due to the writers' and actors' strikes (which have now ended, with both groups getting important wins!), the release schedule might be a bit different this year.  The Dune sequel was delayed to next year, among others.  Killers went against my concern for increasing length of some movies, but it at least earned the extended time.  Next up will be the latest Marvel superhero release titled, um, The Marvels - which will hopefully end the year on a high note for the MCU after both Ant-Man 3 and Guardians 3 were disappointments.  Be back soon!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2023/killers_of_the_flower_moon_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74421048