2023 "On Your Left" Film Awards

 

2023 "On Your Left" Film Awards

It's the time of year again to celebrate the best of the previous year's movies.  I saw quite a few movies, either in theaters or at home via streaming - and as always, there was a mixture of the good, the bad, and the OK.  I've written more about the movies themselves in my Year-in-Review post, but here I'll focus on the best performances of the year.

For this Oscar-style awards post, I'm sticking with my rule that only films I've seen are eligible.  Other than that, if it's eligible at the Oscars this year, it's eligible for me.

Please also check out my year-in-review post with my top-10 movies of the year, most overrated and most surprising movies, and more, too!

Winners in bold

Runners-up underlined

Best Actor

Tom Cruise (Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1)

Leonardo DiCaprio (Killers of the Flower Moon)

Paul Giamatti (The Holdovers)

Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer)

Joaquin Phoenix (Napoleon)

Jeffrey Wright (American Fiction)

Honorable mentions: Chris Pine (Dungeons & Dragons), Keanu Reeves (John Wick Chapter 4)

Didn't see: Bradley Cooper (Maestro), Colman Domingo (Rustin)

2023 featured a bevy of fine performances - not only do I have six nominees, but two other actors deserve honorable nods for genre work.  Chris Pine had just the right deadpan - funny yet serious - to make Dungeons & Dragons the surprise hit of the year, and Keanu Reeves did outstanding action work yet again in his final appearance as his already classic bad ass John Wick.  Tom Cruise is pretty much an automatic nomination for me with his consistently stupendous stunt work and star power.  Giamatti fits his acting in with The Holdover's old school style, earnestly and endearingly grumpy yet warm.  Murphy is on the other end of the spectrum, providing Nolan's newer style with a convincingly enigmatic lead genius.  Phoenix, another perennial contender, gleefully casts aside biopic period conventions, exuding the flaws of a literally and figuratively small man trying to fill great boots.  Wright - the second stuffy professor on this list - displays both nuanced family interaction as well as showy comedy skills. DiCaprio takes the top spot again this year; his character is just as ugly as Napoleon, if on a far smaller scale.  DiCaprio also benefits from a closer focus, allowing him to build a unique character both slow and cunning, brutal yet at times sympathetic.

Best Actress

Annette Bening (Nyad)

Lily Gladstone (Killers of the Flower Moon)

Margot Robbie (Barbie)

Emma Stone (Poor Things)

Iman Vellani (The Marvels)

Didn't see: Sandra Huller (Anatomy of a Fall), Carey Mulligan (Maestro)

I'd never heard of Nyad, based on the true story of a woman determined to swim from Cuba to Florida, but I saw it when it came up on Netflix and Bening is remarkable in it.  I wanted to give Vellani some credit for her charismatic breakout on the Ms. Marvel series and she is just as good (in a less prominent role) in the movie.  I'm not outraged that Robbie didn't get an Oscar nomination but she did do a great job in Barbie - I think the movie itself is just bigger than her (title) role in it.  Gladstone gave a uniquely understated performance in Killers - so quiet, yet so self-possessed - that so effectively countered the evil schemes of her white counterparts.  There can be no question of the winner, though, with Emma Stone essentially growing from a newborn into a distinguished retiree in the span of two-and-a-half hours.  The physical performance early on is hilarious and distinct, then her mental growth astounds - bravo!

Best Supporting Actress

Viola Davis (Air)

Vanessa Kirby (Napoleon)

Da'Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers)

Tessa Thompson (Creed III)

Leslie Uggams (American Fiction)

Disagree w/ Oscars: Emily Blunt (Oppenheimer - fine, but... really?), America Ferrera (Barbie - her admittedly great speech probably got this for her, but I think that's more about the writing), Jodie Foster (Nyad - very good, but not quite good enough)

Didn't see it: Danielle Brooks (The Color Purple)

A lot of differences for me in this category compared to the Oscar nominees!  Viola Davis is great in a pretty small role as MJ's mom in Air; the daring, fateful phone call alone seals it for her.  Thompson wrapped up her character's arc in the Creed trilogy very nicely here, even though her sage advice is not heeded by her husband (surprise, surprise!).  Kirby is a worthy sparring partner (in multiple forms...) for Phoenix in Napoleon though I actually wish she'd been a little less featured.  Randolph is such a nice, strong presence in The Holdovers; she could easily have overplayed it but does it just right and fits perfectly with her costars.  Uggams is the best of them all this year, in the role of Jeffrey Wright's deteriorating mother in American Fiction.  She anchors the family, even as both her past reminiscences and present dementia bring bittersweet anguish.

Best Supporting Actor

Sterling K. Brown (American Fiction)

Nicolas Cage (Renfield)

Robert De Niro (Killers of the Flower Moon)

Robert Downey, Jr. (Oppenheimer)

Ryan Gosling (Barbie)

Mark Ruffalo (Poor Things)

Another fantastic group of performances - and even though I've cheated to get there (6 slots), this is a rare time where my nominees mirror the Oscars'!  Any of these guys could have won in a given year, or at least been runner-up.  My addition is Nicolas Cage, whose turn as Dracula in Renfield was gonzo, both horrifying and hilarious.  Cage almost supplanted Ruffalo for me, but I decided he deserved a nod; his loutish playboy is the perfect hunter-becomes-the-hunted for Stone in Poor Things.  Brown is intense as Wright's gay, wayward brother in American Fiction, insightful about everyone but himself.  Downey, Jr. is great as the smooth but vengeful Washington power broker in Oppenheimer, although the script lets him down by turning him into a cartoon villain in the final act.  De Niro is fantastic, horrifyingly realistic as the leader of the murderous scheme to swipe the Osage Nation's land, wealth, and pride, while appallingly casting himself (effectively) as their protector.  But the winner has to be Ryan Gosling's Ken, the most fun movie or TV role I have seen in many years.  He truly seems like Malibu plastic come to life and, all due respect to Robbie, is the top reason to enjoy Barbie - even while being hilariously fake, his reflection of real-world masculine attitudes is as cutting as any other part I've seen.

Best Director

Greta Gerwig (Barbie)

Goldstein & Daley (Dungeons & Dragons)

Yorgos Lanthimos (Poor Things)

Christopher Nolan (Oppenheimer)

Martin Scorsese (Killers of the Flower Moon)

Didn't see: Justine Triet (Anatomy of a Fall), Jonathan Glazer (The Zone of Interest)

Goldstein & Daley, directors I'd never heard of before (Oh wait, they did Game Night! Check that one out, too), might seem an unusual nominee for Dungeons & Dragons.  However, I base my director picks on the movies that combined a high degree of difficulty with overall quality, plus getting the most out of its elements (acting performances, story, etc.).  I had very low expectations for D&D but found it one of the most entertaining movies of the year, and very well-made.  Nolan is pretty much a shoo-in for me whenever he makes a movie, and for the most part he meets expectations despite Oppenheimer lacking the visual fireworks of his other films; he's not the winner for me, though, because the final act is a bizarre disappointment.  Lanthimos already showed that he is very willing to do things differently than other directors, and takes that another step with Poor Things; while it's a little uneven, the overall effect and quality are tremendous despite the film's sheer strangeness.  Scorsese is an all-time great, and this one deserves a spot near the top of even his impressive list; Killers is a daunting three-and-a-half hours but it felt shorter than some ninety-minute movies to me because it just keeps you riveted with both disquieting historical crime and justice, and somehow a little joy, too.  Gerwig was the Oscar snub of the year, to me, as she wins my Best Director award.  How do you make a movie about Barbie dolls that is both silly - but in a very smart way - as well as coyly adding effective social commentary?  It all had to work together and with a tight focus, and it does: that's why Gerwig is my winner.

* By source https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/styles/hero_image_phone/public/osc-banner_statuette.jpg?itok=7JAY8gYm

Argylle

 

Score:  C-/D+

Directed by

Starring Bryce Dallas Howard, Sam Rockwell, Bryan Cranston, Henry Cavill

Running time: 139 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Argylle is the latest from acclaimed action fantasy director Matthew Vaughn, but it lands with a thud.  Ignore the trailers - this is simply a bewildering yet boring adventure led by two unappealing characters.  It seems like it's written by AI, smashing all the successful genre movies it can into one, with absolutely no original or interesting things to say.  Avoid, both at theaters and at home on streaming.

Elly (Howard) is an international best-selling author, releasing tense spy thrillers that captivate her readers.  As she struggles to finish her current series of novels starring agent Argylle (Cavill), Elly is attacked on a train.  Fortunately, a real-life - if much scruffier than Argylle - agent named Aidan (Rockwell) comes to her rescue.  Aidan tells her that as entertaining as her writing may be, it also is surprisingly accurate about actual events - and the bad guys want her information.  So the two go on the run together across the world, and Elly finds that there is much more to herself - not just her writing - than she realizes.

Argylle is one of the most derivative, poorly written and performed movies I've seen in awhile; it has a small amount of entertainment value, but that is far overshadowed by its poor quality and ridiculous length.  Matthew Vaughn has made some of my favorite recent-ish action movies (Kick-Ass, Kingsman, X-Men First Class) and this seemed to be in the same mold.  Well, the first warning sign is that the trailers, which emphasize a glamorous if silly spy world, are very misleading.  Instead, we follow two dull, annoying characters in Howard's Elly and Rockwell's Aidan around the world.  There are so many "twists" that their changing relationship dynamics make your head spin, from one stereotype to the next.  The actors are given terrible lines, but they also do nothing to elevate the material.  I know Rockwell can do well, but he clearly phones this in; I've never seen a great performance from Howard (not that she hasn't done one) so I'm unsure if she was not well cast or just not good.  The other good actors (Cranston, Jackson, O'Hara) are also clearly in this for the pay checks.  The plot is completely incomprehensible (I gave up after probably ten minutes), and the style is just a mash up of contemporary "heightened" action cliches - some of which Vaughn self-plagiarizes.  The action is also dull and derivative, and falls to ludicrous lows in the finale.  What can I say that's good?  Well, the cat Elly drags around is occasionally amusing - it's one thing in the movie that approaches clever or likable.

***

After some excellent Oscar-level drama in January, I was ready to dig back in to blockbuster action.  With Vaughn directing and some stylish trailers, Argylle looked like a great way to kick off 2024's movie season.  The result, unfortunately, was an utter disaster.  The one thing about it that heartens me is that, even though it was produced by one of the Big Tech companies - Apple - they still released it in theaters rather than just for streaming.  This is not a good movie to see anywhere, of course, but I'm nervous that as Big Tech takes over more film production, they (especially Netflix) are moving away from theaters.  Beyond that, part of my negative reaction to the movie may be that I'm just getting tired of the genre - though I still really enjoy good examples of it, like last year's John Wick 4.  Oh, well.  Considering that there is only one new Marvel superhero movie coming out this year, I think I will look for more variety in my theater-goings than usual.  Hopefully the next one I see is a lot better than Argylle, whatever the genre!

* By https://www.cinematerial.com/movies/argylle-i15009428/p/laqk5lhx, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71214151

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