Ad Astra

Score:  C-

Directed by James Gray
Starring Brad Pitt, Tommy Lee Jones, Ruth Negga
Running time: 124 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Brad Pitt is an astronaut with a family legacy to live up to in this sprawling sci-fi picture.  Despite a promising set up, Ad Astra ends up adrift due to trying to be both a serious, awards-style drama and an exciting adventure.  The script is nowhere near up to the task, and Pitt, left to work pretty much solo, isn't, either.  Not recommended for any but the most hardcore sci-fi fans.


As humanity reaches further and further into the galaxy - including a moon base and frequent explorations into deep space - the Earth itself begins to be subjected to mysterious power surges.  Astronaut Maj. Roy McBride (Pitt) meets top officials, who inform him that the surges may be emanating from the mission of the famed Clifford McBride, Roy's father.  The younger McBride agrees to lead a search mission, though just getting to space requires a battery of sensitive psychological testing and work with a team of eager yet naive flight mates.  Clifford has not been seen or heard from in sixteen years; has his personal quest grown out control, endangering his son and many others?

For a big movie, Ad Astra has a small cast, and even fewer significant players involved.  Brad Pitt is the focal point, as Maj. McBride.  One of Hollywood's last remaining megastars, Pitt really doesn't show us anything new here; in fact, it's an underwhelming performance that he seems vulnerable to now and then.  His McBride is the brooding hero type, stoic to the outside world (particularly on those pesky psych evals) yet supposedly anguished and conflicted on the inside.  A large portion of the blame goes to the inert script, but Pitt just can't seem to resist being seen as an ubermensch, cooly competent and unerringly right when those around him flail helplessly.  This movie is crying out for emotional connection, but Pitt can't provide any.  There really aren't any other major characters; the most important is the elder McBride, played by Tommy Lee Jones, who is seen in brief recorded clips until a few minutes of live action.  Jones makes sense in the role but he's wasted; the inevitable father-son reunion is sterile, and Clifford disappointingly dull.  Ruth Negga gets the next biggest part but it's basically a plot device to help Pitt on his way; and Liv Tyler gets to play yet another Sad Wife (it would have been better to cut this part entirely).

Ad Astra tries to be both Prestige Pic and exciting action film; it never strikes the balance and ends up failing altogether, save the visuals and a few set pieces.  The premise and near-future world of the film are at least interesting.  A mysterious, long-lost explorer may hold the key to averting disaster on Earth, and it's interesting, in the first part of the film, seeing the imagined space infrastructure - from massive, miles-long low orbit stations to a commercialized moon base.  Some of the action is exciting (although ultimately predictable), and the cinematography - esp. eerie blue Neptune and its rings - is well done and the film at least knows enough to give it a co-starring role with Pitt.  But frankly, it's just a mess after that.  It tries to achieve two main narrative goals, both through Pitt: make his way to deep space to (physically) find his father and prevent a disaster; and, ostensibly more importantly, emotionally find his father and inner peace.  Unfortunately, the script is a disaster, both in the overall plotting and the scene-to-scene execution.  The threat - power surges - is on one hand too abstract, but also happens to strike at the most convenient times (if not for poor Pitt) to try to juice the film with a little action.  The government is implied as a cynical, if not sinister, force... yet Pitt ends up doing exactly what they want him to do, anyway.  Much of the action is also ludicrous, if not unintentionally hilarious, from murderous space monkeys, to Pitt literally surfing through Neptune's rings, to a space shuttle version of the airplane take off-stowaway ploy(!).  Some of this might be acceptable if the film was just meant as a simple blockbuster, but most of the time it is clearly trying to be a Dark, Slow, Awards Bait movie.  This is where the father-son portion comes in.  But for all the voice-over describing how Pitt felt abandoned by his father and has now ruined his own life by following in his footsteps, there is absolutely no feeling of connection to either McBride or their relationship.  The movie tries to shoehorn in beats from other (far superior) sci-fi films to achieve prestige and power, but they are all for show, and all the emptier by comparison.

***

Ad Astra is another disappointing film in a year that has been worryingly full of them for me.  I am rather stupefied that it has an 83% score on Rotten Tomatoes at the moment (though some critics do seem to share my far more negative views on it).  I must say that my interest in sci-fi has waned quite a bit in recent years; partly because they are usually too dark and moody, partly because I'm tiring of many of the well-worn tropes (Ad Astra grates on me with both of those).  On the other hand, I have called for more original films from Hollywood in this very space in other reviews.  Well, this is not the way to do it.  If you're a huge sci-fi fan, hey, give it a try - maybe you'll like it more than I do, as many of the critics do.  But otherwise, I recommend just skipping it altogether.



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61092966

Hobbs & Shaw

Score:  D+

Directed by David Leitch
Starring Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Vanessa Kirby, Idris Elba
Running time: 135 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Hobbs & Shaw brings the high adrenaline action of the Fast & Furious franchise, with the feuding couple of Johnson and Statham taking the original family's place.  If you've seen other F&F films before, you'll know what to expect - along with an extra, unpleasant dollop of the leads' out of control testosterone race.  Yeah, there are a few interesting stunts - but not nearly worth it for everything else you have to put up with.  Avoid.


When an MI6 task force attempts to secure a secret biological weapon of mass destruction, a terrorist group led by Brixton Lore (Elba) intervenes.  The task force's leader, Hattie Shaw (Kirby), is forced to inject herself with the dormant weapon and flee, but she is soon on the run not only from the terrorists but also her own leaders.  Longtime rivals Deckard Shaw (Statham), Hattie's brother, and Luke Hobbs (Johnson) are called in to find her; they both begin the search, but refuse to work together.  The clock is ticking, however, and soon the virus will kill its carrier - and likely unleash a plague on the world.

Hobbs & Shaw stars two of the newer and bigger, literally and figuratively, stars of the Fast & Furious franchise, along with several welcome additions.  Dwayne Johnson, as the unlikely global star emerged from a start as a pro wrestler, is the 1A lead of the film as Luke Hobbs.  While he has shown some considerable acting skill in other film roles, Johnson quickly falls back on the masculine posturing that can still trap him, a likely vestige of his wrestling days.  He is quite good at bringing the camera and audience's attention to himself, but here it's all testosterone-driven, which he tries and fails to offset with an occasional and awkwardly forced lighter side.  Statham, as Deckard, lacks the star wattage of his co-lead, but his character and performance are at least a bit more honest and consistent.  A gruff, self-absorbed criminal, he grudgingly works for the good - though only because his sister is in danger.  The film's ugly humor also therefore fits him more naturally.  Vanessa Kirby, off a nice supporting role in last summer's Mission Impossible, is the most interesting - when she gets the chance to be.  Mostly she's the damsel in distress (despite being a trained MI6 agent), but early in the film shows some fun spunk.  Idris Elba, a great actor and particularly in villainous or intimidating roles, is utterly wasted here.  He's about as physically imposing as possible (even referred to as "black Superman"), but his script is disappointingly bland and, frankly, so is his performance.

Hobbs & Shaw, while a spin off of the main Fast & Furious franchise, still retains most of its cousins' DNA - for good, but mostly for bad.  The biggest difference is in fact the most obvious one: most of the F&F team is on the sidelines here, with only relative newcomers Hobbs (joined in the fifth film) and Shaw (first starring in the seventh film) leading the way.  The plot is outright conventional action blockbuster, though the franchise overall has moved this direction, too.  Although the obvious reason for teaming up Johnson and Statham is to amp up the fight scenes, H&S still has several set pieces featuring vehicles.  As we've come to expect, these are over-the-top, to one degree or another.  The most ridiculous one, involving chaining cars together - while moving - to bring down a helicopter, produces the most delirious fun in the film.  Aside from it, despite boosting the intensity and stakes in just about every way possible, little else manages to achieve this one pleasure that you hope to get out of a F&F film.  Mostly, it's a failure of imagination.  Oh, a random virus that can kill every human on Earth?  Hmm, a broken man rebuilt into a nearly indestructible cyborg?  When everything is Extreme As Possible, it all loses its potency.  Then we get to the truly bad parts of F&F, which H&S carries on proudly (and/or obliviously).  No one goes to an action blockbuster for the writing, but these scripts are so bad they make my head hurt.  Only a cameo from Vin Diesel, delivering a choice line in his trademark horrible way, could have made it worse.  Along with the usual cringey, forced "all for family" schlock, H&S spends a lot of time on very unfamilial insult duels, racing each other to the lowest common denominator.  Here, "art" seems to imitate life, as Johnson and Statham apparently were concerned to a very, very sad level about how much they each got dissed and punched compared to the other.  The competition extends to their fictional sex lives as Statham, angry that his "sister" may take a liking to Johnson, gets Eiza Gonzalez to make out with him before disappearing again.  There is impressive stunt and effects work on display in H&S, and I don't want to dismiss their efforts - but when it comes to the guys on screen, yuck.

***

Hobbs & Shaw checks many of Hollywood's warning boxes, yet still suckered me to see it in the theater.  I've seen several of the other F&F movies before; what they've been able to boast in effects and stunt work has always been canceled out by mind-numbingly poor scripts and performances, even by action blockbuster standards.  Still, I thought H&S might finally be the one to acknowledge, if not fix, the past problems while keeping the fun parts.  Symbolically, Ryan Reynolds and Kevin Hart both show up in cameos (sorry to spoil - but hopefully you won't see this movie anyway).  At first, it was nice to see them.  Instead, both their presence and the film as a whole worsen the main problem at the franchise's core:  film as the most purely blunt weapon possible, bludgeoning its audience at every turn - from the silly action to the false family moments - telling, demanding you to accept what it wants (and fails) to be.  This will be the last Fast & Furious move I ever see - theater or otherwise.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59828436

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood

Score:  B+

Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie
Running time: 161 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Quentin Tarantino takes audiences back to one of his beloved eras - in the world and on film - in late-60s LA.  Appropriately, contemporary superstars DiCaprio and Pitt lead the way in a movie focused on recreating the look, sound, and feel of the past.  Considering that the plot is secondary, it's a bit long, but there's still plenty of fun to be had in one of the auteur's most relaxed works yet.  A great way to spend a warm summer evening.


Los Angeles, 1969, is a city in transformation, with some old stars fading into obscurity and new ones just beginning their rise.  Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) is a long-time TV star, but has found himself resorting to one guest role after another.  He is followed in his set-hopping by old friend and stunt double, Cliff Booth (Pitt), once a star in his own right.  After meeting with a big time producer, Dalton sees one last opportunity to revive his dying career, though the habits he's fallen into over the years present formidable obstacles.  Meanwhile, Booth's encounters the city's growing population of hippies as he journeys through the city, at once fascinated and suspicious of them.  A sprawling place, LA still isn't big enough for the increasingly divergent cultures it contains, and a clash is inevitable.

Once Upon a Time... is anchored by two of Hollywood's biggest megastars, but has a lot of other familiar faces, too.  Leonardo DiCaprio, as the fictitious fading TV star Rick Dalton, produces a tremendous performance, the best in the film.  Most effective are the acute and diverse ways in which he shows Dalton's vulnerability and crisis of confidence; these range from subtle withdrawn postures to hilarious, full-on meltdowns.  Any positive trigger in his life brings out the old confident, even egotistical side - it's always lurking - but it's a ruthless time in LA for Dalton, and DiCaprio shows the turmoil it causes exquisitely.  Pitt is fun to watch as usual, too, but his "cool guy" routine is not appropriate for the role, in my opinion.  Whether it was intended to be that way, or Pitt just made it so, it doesn't quite add up.  It's hard to blame him, though, considering the overall vibe of the film, and he knows how to do it.  Margot Robbie portrays the famed Sharon Tate; although she gets quite a bit of screen time, she has very little dialogue.  It's primarily a visual role, something the gorgeous Robbie is well-suited for, though she also still does a good job conveying her character's care-free, innocent demeanor.  There's a dizzying number of cameo roles (portraying both real and fictitious people... it gets confusing), from Al Pacino to Lena Dunham, but the big three are the primary players.  Still, two supporting roles stand out: Julia Butters as Dalton's precocious young Method-actor (not actress) co-star, and Mike Moh in a brief but hilarious scene as Bruce Lee.

Once Upon A Time is one of Tarantino's most intimate and personal films, full of his trademark style but ultimately too indulgent to achieve greatness.  The setting - a blur of real and made-up LA and Hollywood from the late-60s - is another new one for Tarantino, but as usual it is guided by highly flawed yet intriguing individuals.  The narrative is of very little consequence here; Tarantino instead seeks to - and succeeds wildly - bring the audience into the scenery, from the eternally bright sunshine to the glorious classic rock to the vintage garb of the cool kids.  Unfortunately, two hours and forty minutes is rather long for such a meandering film, and Robbie's role (in addition to the foreboding of her very presence) is basically to give the film super-charged jolts of this style as interludes within Dalton and Booth's stories.  Easily fifteen minutes of this could have been cut out.  Still, Tarantino undeniably creates an absorbing, unique feel that is its own pleasure.  Despite being close partners, Dalton and Booth basically split off into separate adventures.  Thanks largely to DiCaprio's work, I found Dalton's professional struggles - from hilarious trailer meltdowns to clever exchanges with his young co-stars to his on-set failures and triumphs - more compelling.  But the film seems to favor Booth's, with its higher-stakes conflict and historical context.  It is also the one that leads directly to the film's conclusion; having resisted for almost two-and-a-half hours, Tarantino at last unleashes his typical, brutal violence.  While I liked that he once again inverted history for the audience's sadistic, vengeful pleasure, it was also not nearly as easy to fully surrender to it as in the slaughter of evil Nazis and slave owners in Basterds and Django.  A surprising yet somehow smooth end for the film, I walked out, like Dalton, satisfied if not unruffled.

***

While Once Upon a Time falls short (for me) of my favorite of the auteur's movies, it's still a high-quality and refreshing change of pace in the summer season.  Neither a sequel nor a reboot, this - like Tarantino's other films - stands by itself yet is out to entertain just as much as any blockbuster.  While the TV seasons have been thrown into disarray by streaming, the movie schedule has budged little.  It does make sense to have more big, popcorn action spectacles in the summer than in other seasons, but it's great to have a little variety, too.  Right now, only a handful of visionary filmmakers - Tarantino, Nolan, Scorcese, etc. - seem to get the resources required to reach a mass audience.  They are making not only the films we want to see today - mixed with the blockbusters and other genre standards - but also the ones likely to inspire the next generation's visionaries.  Be bold, Hollywood!  Highly recommend Once Upon a Time, but if you're sensitive to gore and violence, careful about the ending.




* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60263751

Toy Story 4

Score:  B+

Directed by Josh Cooley
Starring Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Christina Hendricks, Tony Hale, et. al.
Running time: 100 minutes
Rated G

Long Story Short:  Toy Story 4 is a somewhat surprising continuation of Pixar's flagship franchise, returning Woody (Hanks), Buzz (Allen) and the rest.  The film is positively bursting, with new characters, various plot lines, and, of course, laughs.  Not as consistent or as soaring as earlier entries, the fourth is still a very strong animated adventure.  Recommended for all.


Woody (Hanks) and Co. are happy with their new child owner, Bonnie, who plays with them just like Andy used to (even if Woody now gets left in the closet at times).  Bonnie is about to have a little less play time, though, as she's set to begin kindergarten.  At orientation, she feels lonely and makes herself a new toy from a plastic spork.  Bonnie becomes quite attached to it, but Woody is kept busy preventing Forky (Hale) from throwing himself away.  All the toys come along on a family road trip, but Woody and Forky soon get separated from the rest.  Making their way to the family's destination, they find old friends and new foes, learning new lessons both about becoming attached and finding your own way.

The Toy Story family, already filled with famous voices, adds quite a few welcome additions to its ranks in this fourth installment.  Tom Hanks's Woody remains the lead, ever the loyal and courageous toy.  Hanks's versatile, emotive work once again provides the dramatic, emotional anchor in a story with several familiar themes but also new ones that allow Woody some introspection.  Newcomer Tony Hale, as the improvised toy "Forky", is arguably the co-lead here.  With his high-pitched, cheerful yet nervous voice, Hale is a perfect choice for the obliviously, sometimes pitifully, amiable misfit.  Tim Allen's Buzz Lightyear is relegated to second-string in part four, although he is at least as funny here as before.  Bo Peep (Annie Potts) is technically a returning character, though she missed part three and is much different as well as more prominent in a lead role.  Potts does well showing her as a strong, independent woman (toy).  While the rest of the old gang is around, the only other significant parts go to newcomers.  My favorites are (Keegan-Michael) Key and (Jordan) Peele as prize toys Ducky and Bunny.  They are just as hilarious as you'd expect, bringing their own brand of humor but still fitting it neatly into the tone of the Pixar-verse.  Christina Hendricks plays a rather familiar-seeming villain, this one off-setting her ruthlessness with a cheery lighter side.  Finally, Keanu Reeves also (literally) crashes the party as Canada's own Duke Caboom.

Toy Story 4 is a very strong animated film and (final?) entry to the franchise that launched Pixar, although its world's very familiarity leads to diminishing returns.  For Part Four, the filmmakers retained much the same overall structure that we've seen before (at least until the end), while mixing things up more in the details.  There's yet another new toy (Forky), charming on its own yet threatening the old guard with competition for attention.  But not only is Forky not interested in this competition in the slightest, he's even (early on) unsure of his identity and purpose - an object of almost pure imagination and almost too blank of a slate, which is intriguing.  The "villain" is the most disappointingly self-plagiarized part of the film, tweaking just the surface details but basically the same as the Prospector or Lotso from previous films.  It results in part of the film's final act being fairly anti-climactic.  However, Bo Peep's rogue is a breath of fresh air.  She's untethered from any human - but unlike other toys in the series, she loves it.  The film very cleverly yet subtly combines this attitude with the form of another iteration of Hollywood's recent (and welcome) explosion of strong, interesting heroines.  Woody is helplessly drawn to her, at first by their past closeness, but then is unable to resist confronting the idea he has always been so strenuously opposed to: being childless.  On a more general level, Toy Story 4 is as funny as its predecessors, but less consistent in overall quality.  Buzz's revelation of his "inner voice" is hilarious, as are Bunny and Ducky's asides, though the film has less of the series' genius humor in its natural flow.  Similarly, the pacing is rather uneven; for example, most of Forky's development occurs early on before suddenly switching gears to the traditional toys-get-separated adventure (not surprising, as eight people are listed as working on the story).  While the journey is a little rougher along the way this time, the film's true ending is both pleasantly surprising and also appropriately sweet.

***

Toy Story 4 is yet another sequel, but like Spider-Man, represents a significant improvement to the summer's offerings.  Well over half the films I've seen this year - and all of the summer titles so far - have been sequels or remakes.  That's the result of my own choices, and there is a huge range in outcomes for these films (I've also avoided some prominent ones, like Godzilla - "fool me once..." - and Aladdin - "eh...").  Toy Story 4 is one of the franchises that has produced rewarding sequels, though both it and Pixar in general are probably at the point where going back to original ideas for awhile is for the best.  As I've said before, all of Hollywood could learn some valuable lessons by studying what this incredibly good animated studio has been doing for over twenty years now.  Sequel/remake fatigue or not, I highly recommend Toy Story 4 for families and anyone else.





* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60272362

Spider-Man: Far From Home

Score:  B+

Directed by Jon Watts
Starring Tom Holland, Zendaya, Samuel L. Jackson, Jake Gyllenhaal
Running time: 129 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Spider-Man: Far From Home is the latest film in the MCU superhero world, as young heroes like Tom Holland's Peter Parker look to fill the boots of RDJ and the old guard.  It works as both general, crowd-pleasing summer blockbuster and as an exciting vanguard of the franchise.  It overstretches in most areas just a bit, but that's based on the MCU's high standards; go see this whether you're an MCU devotee or simply want some summer fun in the theater.


Months after the Avengers restored order to the universe - and half its souls - society continues to adjust.  For Peter Parker (Holland), that includes strange effects on his high school, where he and many of his classmates pick up where they left off even as others - now five years older - have moved on.  He is relieved for the chance at a break via a field trip to Europe, and decides to leave his tights and web-slingers at home.  Meanwhile, however, new threats have already surfaced.  Nick Fury (Jackson) and Maria Hill find that what appeared to have been massive storms were actually attacks by elemental creatures.  These creatures came from another world in the multiverse, a byproduct of the crisis averted by the Avengers.  Fortunately, a new good guy, Mysterio (Gyllenhaal), came along with them.  Parker just wants to enjoy some quiet time, but finds himself pulled into the latest danger; soon he must decide what part to play in this dangerous new, post-Iron Man world.

Far From Home returns most of the cast from the MCU's first Spider-Man film, Homecoming, and adds one more famous name to it.  Tom Holland reprises his role as Peter Parker aka Spider-Man, and while it's his second "solo" movie, he has now appeared in five total MCU titles.  That means the audience is now comfortable seeing him - the third actor, and by far the youngest - in the famous role, yet there remained plenty of room to explore his new take on it.  The film focuses most on Parker's continued ambivalence over his role as Spider-Man, and Holland conveys this convincingly.  In his many scenes with his classmates, he fits in easily, as awkward and nervous around them as he is in battle.  He remains one of the MCU's most charismatic new stars, and has developed good chemistry with his cast mates, particularly Zendaya.  She, playing MJ, gets a significantly larger role this time, actively involved in both the action and personal moments.  While still mostly the same quiet girl with an air of indifference, MJ also breaks out of that mold here, particularly as her feelings for Parker grow.  Yet she maintains integrity of the character, something many young actors fail to do in such a transition.  Jake Gyllenhaal is a great new addition, a warm, father-like figure to Parker early on before revealing a delightfully weirder side as it goes on.  MCU mainstays Nick Fury (Jackson) and Happy (Favreau) are welcome presences; the latter gets perhaps his most interesting MCU part yet, while the former just feels a bit off.  Finally, the other students - and two teacher chaperones - get significant screentime; while amusing, they ham it up a bit too much occasionally.

Spider-Man: Far From Home definitively shows that the MCU still has plenty of creative gas left in the tank following Avengers: Endgame's epic conclusion to the first eleven years' worth of films.  It plays a similar role to the Ant-Man films - relatively light "chaser" diversions on the heels of massive Avengers adventures.  Still, while there is plenty in here for the MCU fan excited for the franchise's new direction, it is also a general crowd-pleaser, largely thanks to its coming-of-age dramedy elements.  Parker's pursuits of MJ are front and center, but even sidekick Ned gets his own romantic subplot; to go with this drama are the hijinks of a group of teenagers fooling around as tourists and their exasperated teachers giving chase.  Unfortunately, I found it to be a bit overdone, losing the subtle touch of Homecoming's school scenes.  Certainly plenty entertaining, still, but both the script and the performances almost seem to be grasping to match the intensity of the action.  This aspect, too, is amplified in comparison to the previous film.  Spider-Man and Mysterio's raging battles with elemental beasts (animated forces of water, fire and so on) are just the appetizer.  The action is best when Spider-Man is trying to save lives - stopping a building from falling down, for example - and a scene involving ever more elaborate illusions is a true highlight.  But it also drifts towards too big and too much at times, the screen becoming so busy with CGI that it begins to blur together.  Some of that busyness is a direct consequence of the plot, which is well conceived.  It's not hard to see from early on that it's going to have a major twist, but it's nevertheless a clever one.  Really, it's all good, from the plot to the action to the Parker scenes, with the MCU's typically high level of quality.  Pulling back on it all a little could have made it truly special, but it's still another strong superhero movie.

Now, as the MCU geek I am, I'll delve a little into details related to the franchise overall - so feel free to skip this, either if you're not interested or want to avoid SPOILERS!!!  As the first film post-Iron Man, Cap, and (???) Thor, Far From Home gives us some interesting possibilities while still leaving much up in the air.  The villain's mission, to manufacture artificial crises just so that he can play the "hero", makes perfect sense in a world with a major superhero vacuum.  There are still plenty out there, of course, but leaderless and recuperating (physically and otherwise).  Throughout the film, I felt there was something off about Nick Fury, so it relieved me but also horrified me when the post-credits scene showed that he and Hill were Skrulls in disguise the whole time.  I had really hoped that Captain Marvel would be the last we saw of those aliens, but apparently not.  Maybe it's just a one-off thing - but what the hell was that ship the real Fury was on?!  Finally, maybe most importantly, I'm glad that the film remembered Peter Parker is still just a teenager.  He's figuring himself out, and - despite his impressive abilities and tech - is vulnerable to clever, manipulative foes.  Obviously this is worth keeping in mind due to the other credits scene (JK Simmons is back!!!), but also something the MCU needs to replicate throughout its new chapter: the heroes just keep getting more and more powerful, from Black Panther to Captain Marvel, and they need their own challenges (perhaps even "kryptonite"), too.  But so far, so good.  Excited to see what's next for the MCU!

***

Spider-Man: Far From Home fortunately breaks a streak of disappointing sequels/spin-offs this summer, both maintaining the MCU's remarkable critical-approval streak as well as surely blowing up the box office.  We've been in uncharted waters with the MCU for years now - how it can sustain both critical and popular success while producing multiple new films each year, each of which is strongly tied to all the others - but now we'll see if it can survive the loss of its three leading/ "founding" actors.  Hollywood and theaters increasingly depend on not just the superhero genre but specifically the unprecedented success of the MCU; Endgame and Captain Marvel are #1 and #2 this year, combining for more than 20% of the entire box office.  Here's the thing: Marvel hasn't been making extraordinarily entertaining, high quality clones for these 11 years.  It's improved, taken chances, and pushed cinema to new places with its continuing narrative form.  That is a formula not exclusive to Marvel, and if Hollywood wants to survive and thrive in this new media world, it should take notes.





* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60832103

Men In Black: International

Score:  C

Directed by F. Gary Gray
Starring Tessa Thompson, Chris Hemsworth, Kumail Nanjiani, Liam Neeson
Running time: 115 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Men In Black: International, the fourth film in the franchise that started in 1997, has new leads Tessa Thompson and Chris Hemsworth trying on the suits.  Unfortunately, the series' special spark has been lost along the way, and this is really more of a standard sci-fi action comedy that happens to have familiar gizmos and terminology.  Perfectly fine for a family with different expectations looking for fun, avoid this if you are drawn to it by the franchise.


Thanks to a childhood encounter, Molly (Thompson) knows that alien life is among us on Earth.  As a young adult, she struggles in vain to join the CIA and other agencies she thinks can help her find them again - until she stumbles back upon agents of the Men In Black.  Using her iron will, and lack of Earthly attachments such as a family, Molly joins the mysterious group and is renamed Agent M.  Sent to the London HQ, Agent M finds two legends of the MIB, Agents H and High-T (Hemsworth and Neeson).  The appearance of an extremely dangerous alien species known as the Hive - which the London agents once fought - throws M into the thick of the action.  And her presence, a new one in the MIB, soon becomes essential as the threat seeks to take advantage of the status quo.

Men In Black: International, at least in terms of its cast, is a reboot, with all-new performers including its two leads.  Hemsworth and Thompson have already starred together, in fact, in 2017's Thor Ragnarok.  This time it's Tessa Thompson who takes the role of 1A; she's both the newcomer to MIB, and also the one who gets the most background.  Unfortunately, Molly (or Agent M) doesn't amount to much, particularly when compared to Will Smith's original, fellow-outsider Agent J.  It's nice to have a woman lead, and a determinedly independent one at that, but she ends up feeling more like a collection of modern memes than a unique character - the thing MIB is best known for.  Hemsworth himself essentially plays to type, the overconfident hero type whose pratfalls provide much of the film's humor.  These characters match well in temperament, but due to the script and even at times their own acting, there's too much going through the motions.  Rafe Spall plays a Neville-like MIB rules nag, while Kumail Nanjiani adds a bit to the comedy voicing a tiny alien.  Liam Neeson seems born to play an MIB leader, but I would actually have preferred to see more of Thompson.

Men In Black: International is a decent enough entertainment - particularly for those new to the franchise - but also a reminder of how even unique brands like this one can become stale.  On the surface, MIB: International has a rock-solid premise in both its plot and its new characters.  The series gets a change of scenery, from London to Marrakesh to Paris, and as mentioned the leads are among today's most appealing talents.  But for one reason or another, this turns out to be a fairly generic sci-fi action comedy with few if any memorable scenes or other elements.  Other than your typical, lazy blockbuster writing (and even a bit of pedestrian acting), I blame this on three main issues: focusing on plot over style and atmosphere; focusing on action over comedy; and allowing the leads to play themselves rather than stretch into weird new characters.  Yes, the original MIB had its share of action, but most of it was pretty silly.  With the sheer amount of action and CGI in sci-fi movies that have come along since then, we really needed more of the original's bizarre feel and more dirty, gritty visuals that actually felt more real precisely because they didn't rely so much on CGI.  The plot also becomes overly complicated, and yet a key twist is so obvious that the attempts to disguise it worsen the situation.  After all that, it's really not as terrible as I've just made it sound.  The dialogue, while not great, at least isn't cringe-worthy; some of the action is fun, there are clever new aliens, and there's some good humor, too.  But this is certainly not a film for fans of the original; it is much better suited to a family audience, one more familiar with Will Smith as a Genie than a Man In Black.

***

Men In Black: International is a generically disappointing sequel in its content, but also represents some interesting trends in the summer's movie landscape.  The box office has simply imploded - with Avengers being the one, massive exception - as sequels like this, Dark Phoenix and Godzilla have found poor critical reception and an audience that is perhaps even more jaded and uninterested.  It's also part of the debate over whether it's better to create a continuing narrative line through a franchise - represented by Marvel's Avengers, of course - or start with fresh stories and new actors within an otherwise familiar world.  International is a bit of a hybrid, though with its new cast - and perhaps even more importantly, different tone and style - it's more like the latter.  Above all, though, Hollywood studios will hopefully get the message that a handful of franchises are creatively worthy of continuing - e.g. Avengers, Toy Story - while most of the rest should just lie dormant for a while in favor of *gasp!* new ideas.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59441109

Late Night

Score:  B-

Directed by Nisha Ganatra
Starring Emma Thompson, Mindy Kaling, Reid Scott
Running time: 102 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Late Night teams up two stars of different generations - Thompson and Kaling - in an intriguing premise about a faltering late night host and her new writer, respectively.  Kaling is still struggling to adapt to the feature film format, both as an actor and a writer, but Thompson is brilliant and carries it easily.  Not as funny as it should be, but still fun.  Recommended if you're in the mood (once it's on Amazon Prime).


Katherine Newbury (Thompson) has become a victim of her own success.  The only woman host of a network nighttime talk show, Newbury has been showered with awards and commands respect from her peers.  But while she sticks to her guns, modern tastes have evolved and her ratings, trickling downward for years, reach a new low.  After a confrontation with a network executive, Newbury half-heartedly tries to change things up on her show, particularly behind the scenes - including the rare hiring of a female writer, Molly (Kaling).  With competition and ratings pressures breathing down her neck, Newbury struggles between a desire to return to the top of the industry and a need to remain true to herself.  Both new (Molly) and old (her husband) do their best to convince her those need not be mutually exclusive dreams.

Late Night has significant roles for only its two main players, with a handful of supporting characters sprinkled in.  Emma Thompson plays the late night show host Katherine Newbury, and her performance is the best part of the film.  She effectively conveys a sense of power and control, crucial for a part that is the center of a little universe.  By definition, she is an almost larger than life persona, but still conveys both Newbury's strengths and weaknesses - with real subtlety.  When personal drama rears its head, things could easily have soured if not for her steady and authentic path from pain and regret to release.  Perhaps because Thompson is so good, Kaling comes off as not quite ready for Hollywood prime time.  She is likable, but unable to assemble a coherent character from her individual scenes.  Partly this is because of the script (which, well, she wrote), but it felt to me like she was perhaps trying to disappear into her previous, TV roles rather than to treat this one as a distinct entity.  Most of the supporting characters are Molly's fellow writers, the best of whom is played by Reid Scott, even though it again plays a bit too much like Kaling's male companions on her TV shows.  John Lithgow also appears as Newbury's husband and does very well, particularly in developing a deep, genuine personal background for her.

Late Night is a fine dramedy, but one that coasts on its premise and lead performance while failing to realize its comic potential.  This really is Mindy Kaling's film; not only did she write and star in it, but the premise is semi-autobiographical (she, too, started her career as a "diversity" hire).  It's ironic, then, that the strongest aspects of the film are Emma Thompson's late night host and the twists and turns it takes as she attempts to make her show relevant again.  As mentioned, Thompson's acting is just magnetic, and without it the film would have floundered, perhaps fatally (she also happens to be by far the funniest person in the cast).  There are plenty of social media cliches thrown around, but also some interesting maneuvering, such as Thompson's cat-and-mouse game with her lunkhead potential replacement (played by Kaling-collaborator Ike Barinholtz) and an impromptu stand up performance to blow off steam.  Kaling, in terms of her on-screen character, fails to hold up her end of the bargain, though.  The film tries hard to establish the writers' room as the other main element, but Kaling just fails to shine through and there are no saviors to be found in the supporting cast.  She writes her own scenes as if they were for her TV characters, and that simply doesn't work in a feature film, on the big screen.  The Thompson parts, which are new to her, are not affected by that frame of mind (for the most part).  In spite of its unique premise, the film follows a familiar formula, with Thompson and Kaling's characters parting ways before reuniting at the end.  But even if it's forgettable, it's at least pleasantly done.

***

Late Night, considering its intriguing premise and talented creators, is disappointing yet still a fine watch.  Not only is it Mindy Kaling's first major foray into the movies, it's also distributed by Amazon Studios.  While some of Amazon's first tries have been big successes - Manchester By the Sea, The Big Sick - Late Night seems clearly better suited to Amazon's Prime streaming service rather than as a feature on the big screen.  Mindy Kaling is very talented and I like when studios give people like her chances on neat ideas like this.  But Late Night probably would have benefited from some assistance from a few more seasoned film veterans, too.  I'd recommend this one, but only once it comes to Prime and you're looking for something a little different from the comfort of home.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60628920