The Lost Daughter

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal

Starring Olivia Coleman, Jessie Buckley, Dakota Johnson, Ed Harris

Running time: 122 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Lost Daughter is the film adaptation of a novel by Elena Ferrante about a middle-aged woman whose experiences as a young mother resurface during a rockier-than-expected vacation.  Olivia Coleman is fantastic as the lead; the opposite of bombastic, she is utterly convincing in a role that needed just that.  While the movie has little plot, it is a fascinating exploration of motherhood and much that affects it in the modern world.  Highly recommended.

Leda (Coleman) arrives on a Greek island hoping for a quiet, restful vacation, but soon finds the experience quite a bit less soothing than hoped for.  Her beachside accommodations leave something to be desired, including a genial but intrusive manager, Lyle (Harris).  Sunbathing and writing on the beach, where she spends most of her days, Leda's peace and quiet are interrupted by new guests, a large, young, rowdy family.  Mostly annoyed by them, Leda nevertheless is drawn to one young mother whose presence brings back powerful memories for her.  Despite seemingly huge differences, the women find a strange connection.

The Lost Daughter is a well-made, powerful character-driven drama led by excellent performances and an engrossing script.  Olivia Coleman is among the very top actors working today, and it's good that she plays the main character, Leda, because the film is focused on her like a laser.  Jessie Buckley, playing Leda as a young mother in a substantial number of flashbacks, is also great and gets the more passionate side of the character.  But Coleman, as usual, is just fantastic.  She truly inhabits the part, as a middle-aged professor on a solo vacation.  Early on, the film effectively sets a very realistic stage; as beautiful as the Greek setting is, Leda endures a number of mundane but realistic and acutely-observed annoyances, from rotten house fruit to getting her umbrella set up just right.  There is really only the thinnest of plots here, to give a little direction for the characters, but it's really those characters themselves that deserve all the attention.  The cinematography is also good but, again, somewhat lost as most of the attention (mine, at least) was thinking about the characters.  I think the pacing was also pretty good - for a two hour movie with little plot - but I also watched it in a few chunks at home, so seeing it straight through might be different.

The characters are the true draw in this film, as well as the themes that emerge from their realistic circumstances.  Leda may be the protagonist of the story, but a flawed one at that.  She is rather aloof and distant, often curtly rejecting friendly overtures from others at the beach; she also makes a mystifying choice halfway through that causes pain to the very people she starts to cling to.  Granted, I could also put myself in her exasperated shoes when young men keep rudely shattering her peace.  The family Leda observes shocks her with its combination of closeness and occasional generosity, along with chaos and occasional hostility.  No wonder that she is fascinated by Nina, the young mother, whose background seems so different to hers yet her daily life - raising a difficult young daughter - feels so familiar.  This is where the flashbacks come in, showing Leda's struggle to raise two daughters of her own while trying to build her own academic career.  There are some minor dramatic flourishes, but this is the central idea, to me: illustrating modern motherhood.  And while I am not a mother nor even married, it struck a cord with me.  Not about the mothers, who show great strength and love despite some failings, but anger at my own gender.  I know plenty of great fathers and husbands, but too often men fail to be true partners, particularly in sharing in the raising of their children - and this, to me, is the root of Leda and Nina's struggles and even trauma.  So, is this a cheerful film?  No, but it is a strong, captivating one, and has essential observations on the very nature of domestic relations.

***

The Lost Daughter is a leading awards candidate among 2021 films (Oscar nominations aren't out until February 8; why so late???), and I would definitely agree even if it isn't a "favorite" of mine.  I am conflicted about its release on Netflix.  On one side, it's great that this is available to such a wide audience (though I doubt all that many will actually see it).  And streaming in general offers a more realistic pathway for smaller films like this in the future.  But I am sure I would have been even more engrossed by this in a theater, and I really hope that most Oscar hopefuls will continue to get at least a brief wide release in theaters.  Anyway, to repeat, this is not a cheerful one but it is a great choice for anyone looking for a mature, realistic drama and one with a lot of interesting things to say about modern life.

* By http://www.impawards.com/2021/lost_daughter.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68864633

The 355

 

Score:  B

Directed by Simon Kinberg

Starring Jessica Chastain, Diane Kruger, Penelope Cruz, Lupita Nyong'o, Sebastian Stan

Running time: 124 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The 355, featuring an all-female team of agents trying to stop a terrorist plot, hits both refreshing high, and disappointing low, notes.  The cast - with Chastain, Kruger, Nyong'o, and Cruz - has some of the best actors in Hollywood and they shine, particularly in the first part, to go with some great action.  But it falls apart in the second half, failing to realize the potential of the first.  Still, best to see this one in the theater - the good parts are worth it.

A team of Colombian commandos intervenes in what they believe is a high-level drug deal, but actually involves something unusual - and much more dangerous.  The agent who finds the object flees for his safety, but intelligence agencies all over the world pick up on this urgent incident.  The CIA sends a pair of agents, Mace (Chastain) and Nick (Stan) to retrieve the object, just as the German BND sends their best agent, Marie Schmidt (Kruger).  The flurry of competing parties leads to chaos, and the object goes missing again.  As more experts enter the mix, like tech guru Khadijah (Nyong'o), the chase intensifies - and the stakes grow, too.

The 355 is an entertaining action thriller built around an ensemble, but its shoddy second half lets down a very promising first half.  I was drawn to the all-female team premise here; no gimmick, the movie assembled a formidable group of some of today's best actors including one of my favorites, Jessica Chastain.  The entire film is pretty fast-paced, but the early parts still manage to do a good job introducing the characters who, thanks to both good writing and great performances, are distinct and interesting.  Chastain's character, Mace, has a somewhat familiar but unique (for Hollywood) relationship with her male partner, Nick; in just a few minutes, you get the sense of a complex, real woman.  Mace's friendship with Nyong'o's Khadijah is also neat, and she as well as Kruger's and Cruz's characters also get brief but fascinating back stories and personalities.  For the genre, the character work is light years ahead of its competitors, but it also does have plenty of gripping action.  There are several standout scenes in the first half - a chase through Paris featuring Mace and Marie; a shootout in a busy port; and a really well-shot, chaotic-yet-clear spy classic in a Moroccan market.  They are all both creative (even in an oversaturated genre) and realistic-seeming.  You also can practically feel the hard punches and wince at each gun shot.

Unfortunately, the film starts going downhill steadily around the midpoint.  There is a major "twist" - which, really, is pretty much to be expected in this kind of movie.  That there is a twist is not the problem, but the movie begins to focus more and more on the increasingly ludicrous plot at the expense of the characters, to my great chagrin.  The filmmakers seem to have thought the action in the first half wasn't big enough, so these grow, too, and move firmly from the somewhat plausible to generic blockbuster territory.  A final member of the team is added late, Fan Bingbing, in what is pretty clearly an attempt to draw as big a Chinese audience as possible.  Even this element could have been incorporated well - how to add an agent from a rival nation to what so far is "Team West" - but it just gets sucked in as part of the escalating plot and action, too.  Possibly my biggest disappointment is the way the film transforms Mace and Nick's relationship.  I'm not terribly surprised at what they do, but there were plenty of other, MUCH better choices.  The ending sets up for possible sequels, but considering The 355's critical and commercial reception, that seems unlikely to happen.  It's a shame; if the second half had just followed through on the promise of the first, I would gladly see more.

***

My first movie of 2022 (of films released in the calendar year, that is), I was hoping The 355 would follow in the footsteps of several other early-year movies I've seen that far surpassed their bewilderingly low reviews - Downhill, The Upside, etc.  I'm still glad that I went to the theater to see it, though, as there are parts better than anything most films can offer.  I'd prefer to see this kind of Jekyll and Hyde movie, in other words, than a consistently mediocre one.  What is it about this pattern - possibly the single most common one in Hollywood of at least the last ten years - that so many movies start very well, only to have a disappointing second half/ending?  Is it just me?  Or is Hollywood just good at starting ideas and not following through on them?  Here's one suggestion:  for the love of God, not every movie (especially action/adventure) has to just get bigger and bigger as it goes.  Well, at least this was an interesting start to the year in movies - I'm ready for more!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2021/three_five_five.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=65503879

Spider-Man: No Way Home

**SPOILER WARNING!!!***

Score:  A

Directed by Jon Watt

Starring Tom Holland, Zendaya, Benedict Cumberbatch, Alfred Molina, Willem Dafoe

Running time: 148 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Spider-Man: No Way Home is the first truly great addition to the MCU, post-Avengers, thanks to its combination of carefully-crafted nostalgia, epic action, and well-earned emotional pay off.  Long-time superhero movie fans will be thrilled to see the return of familiar faces from as long as twenty years ago, and somehow it all mixes well with the current generation.  The MCU's typical humor is still fully on display, too.  There's no better choice for a winter blockbuster - highly recommended.

Directly following the events of Far From Home, Peter Parker's (Holland) secret identity as Spider-Man is revealed to the world - and he soon finds himself mobbed by both the media and authorities.  Parker's secret, along with his being framed for earlier events, upends his life both personally and as a superhero.  Hoping to fix the situation, he seeks help from Doctor Strange (Cumberbatch); Strange agrees, but the solution does not go as planned.  Instead of less attention, Parker suddenly finds himself pursued by even more - and deadlier - foes.  Spider-Man and Strange, along with Parker's school friends, have overcome long odds before, but now they must face a completely new kind of challenge.

Spider-Man: No Way Home is excellent, a high mark for the post-Avengers: Endgame Marvel superhero movies that shares many of its predecessors strengths.  It's impossible to tip-toe around the spoilers, so to just lay it all out: No Way Home is certainly still part of the Avengers world and all its characters, but it also incorporates characters (and played by the original actors) from the previous Spider-Man film series; specifically, the five from 2002 to 2014.  As I've written before, the first Avengers film was an impressive accomplishment from a difficulty standpoint alone, fitting in multiple solo-leads, each with their own style and tone, into a seamless, exciting team.  Well, No Way Home had a similar challenge in mashing many characters together, but perhaps an even greater one in that these were all definitely intended to be three separate "universes", from a filmmaking perspective.  Again, they borrow a proven strategy from Avengers: a healthy dose of humor, allowing time to just shoot the breeze.  No Way Home also retains the particular brand of light, silly humor from Homecoming and Far From Home, especially in the first part of the movie.  When Doctor Strange arrives - the only other Avengers hero here - they include him in the fun.

Continuing with the Avengers comparison - and, with the original band now broken up, Spider-Man now serves as essentially the anchor of the MCU in its place - the stakes, both in action and emotion, are also ramped up from previous Spidey films.  There is quite a bit of action, the best of which takes place in the first half of the film: a great duel between Spider-Man and Doc Ock, with his menacing tentacles, on a bridge, and an Inception-like, dazzling chase between Spider-Man and Doctor Strange in the Mirror Dimension.  The climactic battle is not all that spectacular, especially compared to the titanic sets from the Avengers movies.  But it makes up for it by being packed with emotion and touching moments.  Those familiar with the Maguire and Garfield movies will get Spidey-tingles from some of the callback moments but ultimately, Holland's hero is now our main Spider-Man and he is faced with not one but two gut-wrenching decisions.  This comes at the end of an especially grueling movie for Peter Parker; an intense battle in the middle act results in a death, one that marks a sad but powerful end to his carefree web-swinging days.

Already, No Way Home has the typical Marvel bases covered in providing great, plentiful humor as well as some crackling action scenes; and it goes beyond many of its kin with the level of emotional investment.  But there's still yet another layer: the addition of the Maguire/Garfield film characters.  The story twist to get them involved in the first place is brilliant, combining Parker's newly-revealed identity with Doctor Strange's abilities.  The villains get the most screen time, led by Octavius/"Doc Ock" and Osborn/ "Green Goblin", and they are still charismatic; their remarkable presence winked at while still remaining deadly dangerous.  But again, as typical with the MCU, the focus is on the hero.  The question is how Parker is to deal with them: leave them to their original fates, or try to save them knowing the dangers?  Maguire and Garfield, entering pretty late in the film, mostly serve to both add humor and also help their new Spidey-brother - with their webs, yes, but moreso with their hard-won ethical experiences.  It pays off, as Holland's Parker makes the ultimate, non-death-related sacrifice at the end to prevent utter chaos.  The final scene, the quietest of the film, is devastating and well-acted by Holland and his young counterparts.  No Way Home starts with the light and silly and develops over a lightning fast two-and-a-half hours into a solemn but hopeful ending with few clues but much excitement for what comes next.

***

Spider-Man: No Way Home is just the kind of awe-inspiring blockbuster that is great to see in theaters around the holidays, similar to the Lord of the Rings movies twenty (!!!) years ago.  I really enjoyed the previous Holland Spider-Man movies, especially Homecoming, but No Way Home truly belongs with the top MCU films like Avengers (and its sequels), Black Panther, and Captain America: Winter Soldier.  While the post-Avengers Marvel movies have all been solid to really good, this proves that they can also still hit the electrifying heights of the previous generation.  There's still one other (potential) big blockbuster for me to see (The Matrix sequel) before turning back to more Oscar-type outings and, hopefully, some pleasant surprises, as the early months often bring.  First, though, be sure to watch this one (I'll be seeing it again, myself)!

* By https://www.sonypictures.com/sites/default/files/styles/max_560x840/public/title-key-art/spidermannowayhome_keyart_1400x2100_v2.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=69217407

West Side Story

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Starring Ansel Elgort, Rachel Zegler, Ariana DeBose, David Alvarez, Mike Faist

Running time: 156 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  All-time great director Steven Spielberg took on the challenge of updating an all-time great musical in West Side Story with high-quality, entertaining results.  Whether you're seeing this story for the first - or the thousandth - time will, of course, affect how you receive it.  But the music and dancing will blow away even the most skeptical audiences, enough to override some concerns with the lead actor and - to me - some elements of the story/structure itself that haven't aged as well.  Highly recommended.

In 1950s New York City, two gangs, the Jets and the Sharks, vie for control of a neighborhood that will soon be taken from them both.  Riff (Faist), leader of the Jets, pleads with recently-parolled Tony (Elgort) to help his old gang push out the Puerto Rican Sharks once and for all.  Tony is conflicted, having a sense of opportunity after being released from prison, and he meets Maria (Zegler) - sister of Sharks leader, Bernardo (Alvarez) at a dance.  Romance blossoms quickly between the two, but tension between the gangs also increases.  The outcome for the community seems inevitable, but choices by individuals still have the power to change hearts and minds.

West Side Story, Steven Spielberg's adaptation of the famed musical, is a faithful, crowd-pleasing production that will dazzle a wide audience.  Before getting to the details of this film, though, my own - and likely many others' - reaction to it is strongly affected by context.  I'm referring, of course, to the audience's familiarity with the musical - on stage and/or the 1961 film version.  I confess that I had not seen West Side Story in any form before this, though I knew the broad outline. So, I personally had few expectations and no direct comparisons.  What I did see earlier this year was another musical, In the Heights.  These musicals are much different in many ways, of course, but they still share some important similarities: historic, tight-knit NYC neighborhoods on the verge of major change; focus on immigrant experiences; and so on.  The sensation of seeing these two within six months was a bit like drinking Coke with a brownie - both taste great on their own, but together, their similarities are not a great mix.  Both are great movies, without a doubt - I just wish that they'd been released further apart.

What stands out most to me about West Side Story is the music. This is actually what I was most familiar with before seeing the movie: not only had I heard all the main tunes, I had played several of them in band.  The music was stuck in my head for days after, particularly "Tonight" which is reprised or adapted throughout the film.  My favorite, though, is "America", and this also goes to the next best thing about West Side Story: the dance routines.  The choreography and performances are spellbinding; the precision and athleticism to the creativity, emotion and storytelling.  "America" is where this all comes together best, I think.  But there are plenty of other great numbers, too, from the bravura "Mambo" dance to the silly "Gee, Officer Krupke" to the quietly affecting "Maria".  The teams of performers that bring these numbers to life are led by a strong cast - though the supporting players outshine the leads.  Ariana DeBose as Anita and Mike Faist as Riff are the true stars; unsurprisingly, both have extensive stage experience.  They both let it rip, whether in the dance numbers or just the raw expressiveness of their dramatic roles.  Rachel Zegler as Maria is also a tremendous singer, but in my opinion the part is simply not very good; she is Tony's love interest, that's about it.  And Ansel Elgort as Tony is probably the weakest link in the cast, unfortunately.  He is a decent singer, but his acting is a bit embarrassing next to DeBose and Faist.  Finally, the movie was a bit long for my taste - though it's almost exactly as long as the original, so I sympathize with Spielberg for prioritizing faithfulness in his adaptation.  Still, the strengths are easily worth putting up with a few weaknesses - which may not be weaknesses based on your own context!

***

West Side Story is the second-consecutive Oscar-caliber movie I've seen in the theater, but shares little else in common with the first, Belfast.  I'll repeat: your own familiarity with West Side Story will probably determine just how good you find this adaptation.  Another element to consider is that, though Spielberg has updated the visuals (it still takes place in the 1950s) and other framing details, the story and structure is - I think - left mostly untouched.  Bringing back my comparison to In the Heights, there is a considerable difference - plot, characters, and music aside - between a musical made in the 1950s and one made in 2005 (when Lin Manuel Miranda launched Heights).  I highly recommend giving this 2021 adaptation (by one of the greatest directors of all time, no less) of one of the best musicals of all time a chance in theaters!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2021/west_side_story_ver6.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68730791

Belfast

 

Score:  A

Directed by Kenneth Branaugh

Starring Caitriona Balfe, Jamie Dornan, Judi Dench, Ciaran Hinds, Jude Hill

Running time: 97 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Belfast is the latest from writer-director Kenneth Branagh, an awards season contender that is also the filmmaker's most personal, intended as a semi-autobiography.  The film is led by its excellent cast, and Branagh achieves an impressive balance of a realistic style with riveting entertainment. Come for the acting, stay for the scenery and sounds; highly recommended for theater viewing.

In late 1960s Belfast, young Buddy (Hill) is growing up in a close-knit community with his brother,  parents and grandparents. A spasm of turmoil and violence - the beginning of the Troubles - jars the city, however, and so regular childhood life is soon joined by a parallel atmosphere of danger, tension, and increasing awareness of differences amongst what was once a unified community.  Even as Buddy passes by soldiers and checkpoints on his way to school each day, he is still more concerned with impressing the older kids, working on his math homework, and receiving the doting attention of his grandparents.  Buddy does also become more aware of his father's tenuous situation, one that threatens to disrupt his daily life even more than the Troubles.

Belfast may be a modest, small-scale drama but, loosely based on writer-director Kenneth Branagh's childhood, it is very well made from beginning to end in all facets, adding up to a big impact.  On the surface, it has obvious comparisons to the 2018 Best Picture winner, Roma.  It, too, was based on the upbringing of its filmmaker and, appropriate to the theme of memory, shot in black and white.  They also both contrast a fairly ordinary family life with nearby political upheaval and violence.  Still, the structure and tone of the films are distinct.  Belfast is more dramatically-heightened, with both clearer narrative lines as well as more intentionally high and low points, emotionally.  But Belfast is driven primarily by a scene-by-scene, day-by-day realism like Roma, a mode that is effectively given shape and direction by the supporting elements of a few family "plot points" and the background of the Troubles.  There are many shots of the streets of Belfast, sometimes bright and full of children and laughter; at others dark and quiet with perhaps a single man patrolling the middle.  The family home also receives lots of attention.

Driving the realistic scenes of Belfast is an outstanding cast.  Jude Hill as Buddy, an 8-10-year-old stand in for Branagh, is among the best child actors I've seen.  He is really the key to the film, present in almost every scene, and following him was as natural as watching a documentary, yet hitting all the beats in  entertaining and/or emotional ways throughout.  Not even a glimmer of self-awareness in the corner of his eye; this is a true performance of childhood innocence.  The parents, naturally well-attuned to both their children's ordinary development as well as the harrowing conflict all around them, are also played with effective realism by Caitriona Balfe and Jamie Dornan.  Balfe gets the more substantial role and provides the film's biggest emotional moments and fireworks in an excellent performance; Dornan is good, too, in a more subtle, side role.  And Ciaran Hinds and Judi Dench mostly just get to have fun, as grandparents should, but each also gets some powerful moments as well, befitting their talents.

Belfast doesn't rely on only its intriguing characters and specific locations; there is plenty to keep someone restless like me engaged.  The first scene is the showiest of the film, while also setting the stage well for what is to come.  I don't want to spoil it, but it all takes place on a single block, the camera swooping up and down it, while a radical transformation takes place before your eyes.  The running length is just about perfect, as is the pacing; Branagh keeps the tone consistent throughout, but mixes up the dialogue versus the still shots, the serious and the humorous effectively.  As mentioned, Belfast is shot in black and white and this plus some impressive cinematography makes it a pleasure to simply look at.  Finally, it's also nice to listen to.  Van Morrison did the soundtrack and his slightly jazzy instrumentals are fun; they seem a little out of place at first, but play a key role in setting the overall tone.  And music plays a key role in a dance scene seemingly out of the blue near the end; it was both the most joyful and, surprisingly, touching of the movie to me.

***

Belfast is the first Oscar contender I've seen this year - in fact, the first I've seen in a theater for nearly two years.  It was quite a way to start that familiar season on the movie calendar - I could easily see this winning, and deserving, the Best Picture prize.  I'm not quite sure it ranks as an all-time classic yet, but it is certainly high-quality in every way, and also among the most entertaining of its kind.  Hopefully I'll continue to get to see a variety of movie genres at the theater in these next few months - there are some blockbusters I'm looking forward to, and with any luck some smaller films like Belfast will pop up, too.

* By Studio and or Graphic Artist - [1], Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68638309

Eternals

Score:  A-

Directed by Chloe Zhao

Starring Richard Madden, Gemma Chan, Angelina Jolie, Salma Hayek, Kumail Nanjiani

Running time: 157 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Eternals introduces a host of new heroes in this post-Avengers Marvel world, and these guys are quite literally heavenly.  With a sprawling, fantastical premise and so many characters, a fine balance was necessary; many critics assert that it failed to find it.  But I was impressed by this true team - no individual stands above the rest - and Oscar-winning director Zhao's focus on them, through whom the action and everything else becomes more engrossing and specific.

Thousands of years ago, just as human civilizations began to emerge, a group of ten beings called Eternals were sent to Earth to protect our ancestors from alien predators.  The Eternals hunted these aliens for many years, and remained on Earth through the present day, disguised as regular people.  When two of the Eternals, Sersi (Chan) and Sprite (McHugh), are attacked, they suspect that the pattern they've followed for thousands of year has been disrupted.  As they reunite with the other Eternals, Sersi learns more that challenges what she thinks she knows.  Having settled in among the humans, Sersi is shaken awake to the stakes involved not just for the planet but for worlds beyond.

Eternals, despite being part of the Marvel movie universe I love, shares many elements of movies that don't tend to work well; but somehow, it does work here.  It's similar to the Avengers - and especially Infinity War and Endgame - in that properly balancing a large number of characters, the background (which in this case is entirely new), and the current plot is enormously challenging.  The big risk is that so many elements will end up as window dressing within a busy but incoherent two-and-a-half hours.  Fortunately, Marvel has continued to land the most appropriate directors, from the hidden gems (Joe and Anthony Russo) to bigger names - in this case, recent Best Director Oscar winner, Chloe Zhao.  I haven't seen her other work yet, sadly, though I do know that it is almost in the opposite of a Marvel blockbuster.  Zhao and the screenwriters wisely stick to the Marvel tradition of focusing on the hero characters while balancing the action and plot pretty effectively; at least, in my opinion.

Marvel movies have become associated with their interconnectedness; not just returning characters, but narratives that run through a dozen and more films.  Well, Eternals is about the least connected Marvel movie I've seen in a long time.  I actually missed the main connection while watching it, but I can safely say it doesn't affect your enjoyment or understanding of the movie.  The reason it's relatively standalone is that the premise starts literally at the beginning - how Earth was formed and humans developed (Marvel's fictional version, of course).  Eternals doesn't bombard you with all the details at the beginning, though; you get just enough to start, and then a combination of flashbacks and a bit of present-day dialogue fills in the rest of the picture.  The movie's first action scene follows the initial exposition; it and a few other skirmishes throughout are admittedly ho-hum, by Marvel standards.  But there is more tension in the action scenes than usual, as several heroes die in the film, a rarity for Marvel; despite their raw power, there is a clear sense of their vulnerability.  An action scene in the Amazon is particularly good, with multiple phases, unpredictability, and emotion.

The crowd of heroes that make up the Eternals - ten in all - are a charismatic bunch, helping to increase concern for their fates in those action scenes.  While there are no true standouts, most give solid to very good performances, and Zhao uses their contrasting personalities to maintain energy and variety through the long running time while minimizing the downside of not being able to focus on any one for too long.  Sersi (Chan) and Ikaris (Madden) bring a more traditional romance to the Marvel universe, though one clearly shaped by their powers and mission.  Kingo (Nanjiani) and Phastos (Henry) bring the comedic element though in distinct forms, while Sprite (McHugh) and Druig (Keoghan) bring sharp contrarian personalities.  And there's even more, if somewhat overshadowed: Thena (Jolie) brings both power and vulnerability, and Makkari (Ridloff) confidently represents the differently-abled.  The plot is interesting and, in the main, straightforward enough to follow without straining (I got lost on a few supporting elements, but it didn't matter).  Yet it is the journey of following these characters, as they go from ancient alien saviors to present-day individuals immersed in humanity, that drives the movie.  We don't get any images of civilians fleeing the crumbling of a city (though there is an epic CGI creation to behold); Zhao instead trusts the audience to see the global - and galactic - stakes through her ten heroes.  The final battle, reminiscent of a great one in Infinity War, pits the heroes against their own motivations more than any external enemy.  You can quibble with the execution of this scene or that one, the pacing, and so on, but Zhao truly directed Eternals in just the way it had to be.

***

Eternals brings yet another dimension to the Marvel movie universe: a historic, almost divine one.  I am glad that they let this one stand pretty much on its own, post-credits sequences aside.  And despite the length, I am also even more interested than I usually am to see this one again in the theater.  Critics have savaged this movie, which I think is mostly because they are tired of Marvel movies and are eager to pounce at the slightest opportunity to be negative.  It certainly is not a perfect film, but if they actually gave it a fair chance with an open mind, I feel more would see it the way I do.  I encourage you to try it for yourself, whether or not you are a Marvel fan!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2021/eternals_ver3.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67750433

Dune

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Denis Villeneuve

Starring Timothy Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Jason Mamoa

Running time:

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Dune marks both the latest adaptation of a classic sci-fi novel and the newest film from one of my favorite directors, Denis Villeneuve.  Especially considering the challenge involved, Villeneuve and his impressive cast and crew succeed remarkably well in being both faithful to the source and also cinematically rewarding in its richly created world.  I wish that they had trusted the audience to figure the story out without hammering the plot, but those who haven't read the novel recently may appreciate the help. Highly recommended for theater viewing.

In a distant future in which humans have spread across the stars, the House Atreides is ordered by the Emperor to move from its home planet to the desolate but important desert world, Arrakis.  Atreides is led by the Duke Leto (Isaac), who is determined not just to continue harvesting an essential, valuable resource on the planet, but also to make peace with the long-subjugated native people there.  He is joined by his concubine, Lady Jessica (Ferguson), who trains his son in the mysterious ways of the sisterhood known as Bene Gesserit.  However, House Harkonnen, rival to Atreides and former rulers of Arrakis, are infuriated with the change in the balance of power.  As Atreides adjust to their strange new world, they must reckon with both friends and foes from afar and close at hand.

Dune, the latest film adaptation of the classic sci-fi novel, is an entertaining, stylish, and intriguing work; nevertheless, due to the nature of the source material, it's also impossible to get it all right for both the fans and the newcomers.  The movie starts in just the right place, though: Denis Villeneuve, one of my favorite contemporary directors, was a perfect choice to make it.  There is a lot to unpack in Dune, the novel, but Villeneuve's mastery of big, awe-inspiring cinematic sights and sounds, making you truly feel like you are inhabiting the world in front of you, addresses its most critical element.  Sure enough, Villeneuve, the cinematographer and a host of production and effects artists capture the expanse of the desert world, one filled with wind-swept, sun-beaten vehicles, buildings, people and creatures.  Soaking these in, in the quieter moments, is actually even more impressive than the movie's action scenes.  There's also plenty of great sound, especially the Bene Gesserit "voice" and the colossal, booming movements of the tech. The soundtrack is also very good - Hans Zimmer is one of today's best composers - but I can't help but feel Villeneuve's former collaborator, Johann Johannsson, who tragically died a few years ago, would have made it even more special.

Dune is an adaptation - as many films are - but this one has bedeviled Hollywood for decades, such as 1984's infamous attempt.  I read the novel over the summer, since I knew Villeneuve would be directing the movie, and now I know why it's been so hard to adapt: there is a LOT in it (some parts of which are stylistically dissonant), much of it takes place in characters' thoughts, and, frankly, the book itself is uneven in quality (in my opinion).  The film mirrors the book in that the characters are hit or miss. My favorite by far is Lady Jessica, and I think they found the perfect actor in Rebecca Ferguson to play her.  She is truly the heart and soul of the story, at the intersection of the family aspects (mother of the main character), the political intrigue (concubine of the Duke), and the fantasy parts (a Bene Gesserit sister). Jessica - and Ferguson - is beautiful and entrancing, loyal and loving yet with as distinct and strong an agenda and interests as any other character.  Timothy Chalamet also does a good job in main role as Paul, portraying a gradual maturation rather than jumping suddenly into hero mode.  On the other hand, Jason Mamoa was a poor choice as Duncan Idaho, as well as the accompanying expansion and dumbing down of the role.  I also might have chosen someone more abrasive than Oscar Isaac for the Duke, though he does a fine job; Stellan Skarsgaard as the revolting villain is a better match.

Dune is made at such a high-level of quality, but I also couldn't help myself from thinking about what I would have done differently (although I take this itself as a positive sign; any movie that keeps me thinking later on is a good one).  I had the advantage of having recently read the novel, but selfishly I wish that the movie was more ambiguous, and even more atmospheric, versus the plot and action.  Too much is just stated outright, and one of the pleasures of the novel was sort of piecing things together for yourself; show, don't tell, and let the audience work on it!  The story is an important forerunner of much sci-fi/ fantasy to come (Star Wars, etc.) but the results of some of its familiar structures (e.g., "the Chosen One") have been done better by its successors.  So more emphasis on the sights and sounds of the world (courtesy of Villeneuve and his team's talents), and characters (played by an exceptional cast) speaking more natural dialogue - rather than exposition - would have been refreshing (to me).  Cut down on the action scenes, which are mostly referred to in passing in the novel, to make room.  Still, I'm mostly nitpicking; while you may recognize the outlines of this story, it's the details brought to life by the filmmakers that make this necessary viewing in a movie theater.

***

I'd been looking forward to seeing Dune - for longer than usual, thanks to the pandemic.  But, like Bond, I'm really glad that the studio didn't just dump it on streaming and bypass the theater (though Dune is also available now on streaming, too).  Those two films also felt similar to me in other ways, whether it's Hans Zimmer composing the music for both, a reaction of good-but-could-have-been-even-better, and darker than typical (but not dismal) tones.  Well, next up will be a return to my current favorite franchise, Marvel, with The Eternals.  It's also getting to the time of year where Oscar hopefuls should start showing up.  Stay safe, but head to the theater if you can for one of these big screen-optimized options!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2021/dune_ver16.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68273917