Black Panther: Wakanda Forever

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Ryan Coogler

Starring Letitia Wright, Danai Gurira, Angela Bassett, Lupita Nyong'o, Winston Duke, Tenoch Huerta

Running time: 161 minutes

Rate PG-13

Long Story Short:  The long-anticipated - but painfully so, due to star Chadwick Boseman's death - sequel to Black Panther has arrived.  It pays homage to the fallen young man very well and also moves on, showcasing the intriguing Shuri, played again by Letitia Wright.  The rest of the cast also ranges from solid to excellent but the plot unfortunately prevents it from being a truly worthy successor.  The world of Wakanda is ripe for amazing new stories but I hope that they don't get so distracted next time.  Still, this is an entertaining time to spend at the theater.

One year after the death of T'Challa, king of Wakanda and the Black Panther, the advanced yet hidden nation finds itself under increasing pressure from the outside world to reveal its secrets - and weapons.  An American naval research expedition detects vibranium on the ocean floor, the alien substance that has enabled much of Wakanda's spectacular technology.  The discovery, however, awakens an ancient force that is fiercely protective of the vibranium.  Under Queen Ramonda's (Bassett) leadership, Wakanda feels pressure both to prevent outsiders from accessing vibranium - but also to protect those same people from a dangerous new threat.  Meanwhile, Shuri (Wright), T'Challa's sister, can't get past her brother's death - yet also questions the direction he had set for his people.

Black Panther: Wakanda is a solid Marvel entry, particularly with its appropriate handling of star Chadwick Boseman's untimely death and turn toward his character's sister, Shuri; however, the plot and new elements are a significant drag on the film.  Mirroring real life, T'Challa, aka the Black Panther, dies at the beginning from an illness.  The Wakandan mourning process is powerful and poignant, as is a quieter tribute near the end of the film.  The sequel then turns to Shuri as the new lead.  I feel this was a good choice, both because Shuri was among the most interesting of the great characters introduced in the 2018 original as well as her more conflicted nature and influences.  She is as strong as her brother, yet feels the temptations that brought down her cousin, N'Jadaka (Michael B. Jordan's villain in 2018).  Being the lead does dull her character's sharper edges, unfortunately, and Boseman's absence is felt often, but Wright does great work.  Angela Bassett's Queen Ramonda and Danai Gurira's general/bodyguard Okoye are also extremely welcome returnees; if anything, I wish Okoye in particular had a bit more screen time.  M'Baku continues to be a nice comic presence and newcomer Riri, a young American, is also fun with her handful of moments.  Rounding out the cast are CIA agent Ross (Martin Freeman) and boss Valentina (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), who are a fun side track and reveal a new connection.

Unfortunately, the plot of Wakanda Forever holds it back, going too big and too out-there, similar to 2019's Captain Marvel.  Rather than little green men from space, this film features a powerful, turqoise-colored race of mutants called Talokan, led by Namor.  Partly because I'm jaded by the underwater people thing by Avatar and Aquaman (both highly overrated, IMO), this did not impress me; and for all the time spent on their backstory, a lot of important things are left frustratingly vague.  The worst part to me, though, was the suspension of disbelief.  I'm usually pretty good at this - I do love superhero movies, after all! - but when characters' actions and decisions don't align with the powers involved, I quickly lose my connection.  Here, the Talokan and especially Namor are just ridiculously powerful.  They seem to greatly fear being discovered by the "surface world", which they hate - yet to all appearances, they could wreak utter devastation on humanity with little trouble.  It also sinks the potentially interesting plotline of an alliance with Wakanda - both of them are hidden outcasts in the world.  Yet for all the similarities the film wishes to show, the two are never anything but mortal foes.  Some modest tweaks could have made this plot much more intriguing, realistic, and suspenseful.  But I'd go even further and drastically shrink/ eliminate the Talokan's role altogether, focusing on the more interesting Wakandans, their evolving relationship to the outside world (which gets passing, simplistic mention at the beginning then forgotten), and simply cut down on the way overlong running time.

Still, even with my plot complaints, there is much to enjoy in the Black Panther sequel beyond the Boseman tribute and the cast.  The production quality remains spectacular, seamlessly recreating and expanding the fictional Wakandan nation; even the Talokan, despite my distaste, get some pretty awesome visuals.  There's also some good action, especially a scene in the first half involving the rescue of Riri, escape from conventional authorities, and an intense Okoye vs. Talokan fight.  The rest of the action is encumbered by the power imbalances I wrote about, but are still entertaining.

***

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever is a bit disappointing, suffering in comparison with a modern classic. It also marks the end of the so-called "Phase 4" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe - in other words, the movies that have come out since the epic Avengers Endgame.  Some interesting new characters have been introduced, and the movies themselves have maintained a high level of quality, Spider-Man: No Way Home being the highlight to me.  There was also, though, little attempt at the familiar narrative-building we'd gotten used to, and no mention of reassembling a new Avengers team.  But perhaps the biggest development was the start of the Disney+ TV series - eight of them already.  They've been quite strong so far, with great variety.  I want to review them in some form, eventually...  For now, hopefully the fall movie season will continue along well.  I may even try some things that I usually skip - stay tuned!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/black_panther_wakanda_forever_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71373844

The Banshees of Inisherin

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Martin McDonagh

Starring Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Kerry Condon, Barry Keoghan

Running time: 114 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Director McDonagh reteams with In Bruges stars Farrell and Gleeson in a quiet drama with big ambitions.  Farrell and Gleeson are great, as are co-stars Condon, and Keoghan, and it's very well done from the script to the scenery.  What starts as a simple and amusing tale, however, gradually evolves into a bleaker picture of a country friendship gone horribly awry; I much preferred the opening tone, but the ending isn't bad enough to spoil the experience.  Highly recommended.

On a tiny Irish isle during the 1920s and right next to the Irish civil war, life is slow and repetitive but generally content.  That's the case for local nice guy Padraic (Farrell), until one day he is spurned by his pub mate Colm (Gleeson).  Padraic is shocked by the sudden, inexplicable turns of events, and neither his sister Siobhan (Condon) nor another pal Dominic (Keoghan) can console him.  This simple act soon begins to have larger effects through the sleepy isle, and Padraic and Colm's once simple lives turn in directions they'd never expected.

The Banshees of Inisherin is a very well-made film from top to bottom, a realistic drama in many ways that is nevertheless unique and even surrealistic at times.  The film focuses on the simple character of Padraic, his day-to-day life and his relationships.  Plotwise, the most important of these is with (former) friend Colm, but plenty of time and attention is given to others as well, particularly Padraic's sister, Siobhan, and local scamp, Dominic.  The setting is beautiful and open, thanks to great photography and gorgeous scenery, yet also literally and symbolically confined within the little island, bouncing from Padraic's home, to Colm's, to the local pub, and back again (with a few exceptions).  To me, the particulars of the plot are also mostly a vessel to explore not only the interesting characters but, through them, a tension between outlooks on life:  is it better to live a simple, modest, yet contented life focused on loved ones, or to focus on achievements that will outlast your own life, happiness and loved ones be damned?

Like the its conflicting themes, the film itself can be split in two - a quietly remarkable first half, and a disquieting second half.  Banshees starts in a clever way - by jumping right into the main plot, with no character introductions or scene-setting, leaving the audience to piece it together (which doesn't take long, and is kind of fun).  The audience, then, is just as bamboozled as Padraic, at least at first, and it leads to some great humor.  Along with the laughs, the film provides some intriguing insights into the nature of friendship and the way we try to puzzle out what others are thinking and why they act as they do.  Padraic and Siobhan are both great characters, and played superbly by Colin Farrell and Kerry Condon (whom I recognized but couldn't remember where - she's Mike's daughter-in-law in Better Call Saul).  Padraic is so sympathetic and likable, simple yet nuanced and relatable; Siobhan is strong and brilliant, caring yet refreshingly willing to look out for herself; she's the MVP (and an aspiring librarian, no less!).  Things turn suddenly darker when Colm begins to take drastic measure in the friendship conflict; it's gruesome, but thoughtfully done and an interesting turn.  What I do not like is the way Padraic is transformed, especially in the last third or so.  The film seems to side with his life outlook, yet the conflict brings him down, anyway.  I feel sure that it could have gotten the same points across without "killing" Padraic, in a sense.  It was a disappointing development, to me.  Still, the film's quality is undeniable, and others may feel differently about the ending than me.

***

The Banshees of Inisherin, which I found out about just last week, is a welcome theatrical surprise as we head further into the fall and closer to Oscar season.  It is certainly much different than the last film I saw, Amsterdam, and interestingly opposite in some ways: Amsterdam is somewhat flawed from a technical standpoint but it nails the right feeling and ending (for me), whereas Banshees is outstanding filmmaking but has an ending that holds it back from greatness (for me).  I'll certainly be happy to see more dramas with quality like this in the months to come, though first, I'll be returning to superhero fun with the much-anticipated Black Panther sequel next week.  If you haven't already, I encourage you to get back out to the theater now!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/posters/banshees_of_inisherin_xxlg.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71458552

Amsterdam

 

Score:  A-

Directed by David O. Russell

Starring Christian Bale, Margot Robbie, John David Washington, Robert de Niro, et al

Running time: 134 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Amsterdam is the latest film from lauded director David O. Russell, a wartime dramedy murder mystery (yes, all those things).  The three main stars, Bale, Robbie, and Washington, carry it with spectacular performances, and there all lots of fun side parts.  The script isn't perfect, but Russell gets the drama-comedy balance just right to create both an entertaining and touching experience.  Highly recommended.

During World War I, Army medic Burt Berendsen (Bale) makes a pact of protection with Black soldier Harold Woodsman (Washington) and, with the help of nurse Valerie Voze (Robbie), the pair survive the horrific conflict.  The newly-formed trio goes on to enjoy a well-earned European holiday, but their past lives soon pull them apart.  Fifteen years later, Burt is called on to perform an autopsy on an old comrade, thanks to suspected foul play.  Harold accompanies his old friend on the adventure and the two are forced to confront history - both personal and global - as they discover a whole new world.

Amsterdam is a very good work of historical fiction; while it can be a little rough around the edges, its strengths and overall tone more than compensate.  I was expecting a considerably different film from its director, David O. Russell, whose movies like The Fighter and American Hustle I enjoyed a lot but had much different tone and style.  Amsterdam is a dramedy, like Silver Linings Playbook in that sense, which might seem unusual for a wartime murder mystery plot.  However, it makes for a good balance: serious enough for some of the themes involved, but not depressing; plenty of chuckles, but not a parody.  The plot itself, and I don't want to give away many more details, is fairly involved, but the dialogue - and there is near-constant talking - explains it all and prevents confusion, if you're paying attention.  I will admit that the script is uneven in quality, sometimes a bit too direct or just awkward.  A little more editing could have helped, as this feels more like a two-hour movie.

The main strength of the movie are the characters and their bonds, though, and the warmth and even uplift they provide makes up for any other weaknesses.  The three main characters, who meet during WWI, provide a strong foundation, and the movie is at its best when they're all together, from bonding in Europe right after the war to the more strained - at first - reunion in the 1930s.  Christian Bale, the main main lead, is the standout.  Bale is probably my favorite contemporary actor and he proves his skill here yet again, creating a memorable personality that is gruff yet quirky, independent yet altruistic, and overall just very likable and sympathetic.  Robbie is great, too, in a surprisingly complex role, and Washington, although his part is not as juicy as the others.  The star-studded supporting cast also deserves recognition, especially Malek and Taylor-Joy's eccentric rich couple, Mike Myers' hilarious MI6 agent, and Robert de Niro, perfectly cast as an incorruptible Marine hero.  Speaking of which, Amsterdam does a great job, in my view, of honoring veterans, particularly those who are disabled, using that dramatic-comedic balance effectively.  Finally, the "extras" finish the job of creating the historical atmosphere via set design and costuming; and even more importantly, a great soundtrack (and poignant theme) is a perfect accompaniment for the characters and story.

***

I'd been looking forward to Amsterdam since seeing the trailer over the summer, and it was worth the wait.  What shocks me is the critical reception:  a terrible 33% score on Rotten Tomatoes.  I haven't read any specific reviews yet, mostly to not influence my own, but I'm very disappointed that they've disregarded it.  Don't listen to them!  Unfortunately, if you haven't seen it yet, you might not get the chance to see it in theaters now - but I highly recommend it for streaming when available.  As we move further into the fall, hopefully more high-quality dramas like this will make their way to theaters.  It's been a boring few months, one of my longest (non-pandemic-related) theater droughts.  I know I'll definitely be watching the Black Panther sequel in a few weeks, though.  For now, put this one on your list!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/posters/amsterdam_xxlg.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71241791

Nope

 

Score: B

Directed by Jordan Peele

Starring Daniel Kaluuya, Keke Palmer, Steven Yeun

Running time: 131 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Nope is the third movie written and directed by Jordan Peele (Get Out) featuring his unique combination of horror and humor.  While mysteries are key (sorry) to his movies, they are particularly central to this one.  Daniel Kaluuya and Steven Yeun anchor an eclectic cast, but it's the setting and atmosphere that truly star.  Unfortunately, the film can't hold its suspense, and it suffers not from bizarre settings but rather character choices.  Still, it's worth a try if you enjoyed Get Out.

Siblings OJ (Kaluuya) and Em (Palmer) pursue Hollywood dreams from the family ranch in California after their father dies mysteriously.  OJ does his best to train horses to be used in movies and TV but it's a struggle, and he is forced to start selling his horses to Jupe (Yeun), the owner of a nearby Wild West theme park and a former child acting star.  During a visit to the ranch, Em and her brother encounter strange howling noises and flickering electricity that spooks their remaining horses.  Desperate for a break to help them through the hard times, the siblings decide to investigate and soon find themselves in the midst of something far stranger than anything Hollywood could dream up.

Nope is a unique film from a very talented filmmaker in Jordan Peele, with some effective moments of both horror and humor, but it is a significant step back from his instant classic Get Out due to a poor final act and bizarre character work.  Horror is one of the few genres I almost always avoid; only because of my love of Key & Peele did I - thankfully - try Get Out, and now Nope.  So while I'm unfamiliar with genre standards here, I believe Peele does strong, groundbreaking work with tone, creating creepiness while allowing for plenty of humor that somehow doesn't dissipate the scariness.  At least, in the first half of this movie.  The dialogue is minimal; instead, Peele provides a vast, open ranch which, during the day, is bright if desolate but at night creates a feeling of isolation and vulnerability.  To that he adds otherworldly elements - howling wind that sounds eerily close to screaming; flickering lights and deadened music; braying, stamping, galloping horses.  You find yourself scanning the skies for a mysterious presence just as nervously as the characters on screen.  Another horror scene, involving a flashback traumatic on-set incident for June, while narratively random, is also effective.  Amidst this all, though, there are plenty of chuckles, too, primarily through the siblings' contrasting personalities: OJ's stoic, measured words and reactions and Em's flamboyance and energy.  A weirdo tech store helper they befriend is also fun.  Kaluuya and Yeun do particularly good work.  I was not as big a fan of Palmer - it was a bit over the top to me - but she still adds some needed juice to a film otherwise light on character interaction.

Unfortunately, the second half or so starts going downhill due to the loss of the creepy, mysterious vibe as well as increasingly inexplicable character choices and sci-fi elements, and goes on for too long.  I enjoy plenty of unrealistic fantasy, sci-fi and superhero movies; therefore, I am quite capable of suspending my disbelief, of course.  But related phenomena that do bother me are when characters behave or make choices that don't make sense and when fantasy elements contradict their own "rules".  In Nope, the characters are caught off guard when the first odd and threatening things occur, and logically investigate them only very carefully and are clearly on guard.  However, they eventually are convinced that the mystery is a predatory UFO above the ranch.  Do they contact any authorities, or even just get the hell out of there?  No - they decide to try to film it!  I don't care how desperate you are for money or love making films, the imminent mortal danger to themselves - not to mention possibly many others - makes this absurd.  The behavior of the UFO "monster" itself is inconsistent, ranging from ominous yet keeping a distant to immediate and actively hunting, as well as other mismatching details that confuse what it is and can do.  This all comes together in the movie's final act - where the characters execute a rather intricate and, again, insanely dangerous/ suicidal plan to film the UFO.  The siblings somehow make it out alive, but it had little effect for me: essentially, it is simply a miracle that they survived their own stupidity.

***

I had pretty high hopes for Nope, a rare summer movie with critical as well as popular expectations.  Unfortunately, Peele could not sustain the perfect blend of horror and humor in Nope that he achieved in Get Out - perhaps due in part to the significant inclusion of sci-fi to the mix.  I really did enjoy the first half of this movie, but it feels like Peele had a particular ending he wanted for the film, and to get there, he was forced to make too many compromises in the second half.  Oh, well - I still look forward to whatever he makes next.  Speaking of what's next, I'm not sure.  The movie calendar looks pretty barren for the next month or two, unfortunately.  Hopefully there will be some pleasant surprises, though.  Until next time!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/nope_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68297324

Thor: Love and Thunder

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Taika Waititi

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Christian Bale, Tessa Thompson

Running time: 119 minutes

Rate PG-13

Long Story Short:  Thor: Love and Thunder shows the continued adventures of the last of the three original Marvel superheroes, Thor.  Despite an OK plot and reliance on CGI, this Thor has one of the strongest character showcases in the franchise, which was already a highly underrated feature of these movies.  Mix in plenty of humor, needle drops, and some genuinely neat action, and we have another triumph for the MCU.

**as usual, SPOILERS below!**

Thor (Hemsworth) continues his journey across the galaxy with Star-Lord (Pratt) and the other Guardians, but for all his victories he is restless.  Time and battles, both violent and domestic, have taken much from him, from his parents and adopted brother, to his weapon, Mjolnir, to his relationship with Dr. Jane Foster (Portman).  A threat to not just himself but to all Gods brings Thor new purpose, however.  He soon finds himself back on Earth where the remnants of his people live in New Asgard.  Strong as he is, Thor will need all the help he can get, from loyal friend Korg (Waititi) to the fierce and brave Valkyrie (Thompson) and more to prevail.

Thor: Love and Thunder keeps this sub-franchise within the Marvel Cinematic Universe surprisingly fresh with compelling character work and stakes, even if the style is not as well-honed as Ragnarok's.  The beginning of the movie sees Thor still chumming around with the Guardians of the Galaxy characters, which is where we last saw him at the end of Avengers: Endgame.  A good place to start, but that other series seems to infect this whole movie a little too much: GoG's signature silliness and ubiquitous pop soundtrack are in abundance.  I do love the GoG, but I would have preferred that Waititi stick more to his own eccentrically irreverent style that he introduced in Ragnarok.  The main plot in which a scary new villain wants to destroy all the Gods, and seeks a mystical source to do so, is also a little ho-hum, but I get that it's difficult to bring it, well, down to Earth when your main character is a God himself.

Where Love and Thunder truly shines, however, is in its characters.  Dr. Jane Foster takes center stage here, a bit like Wanda Maximoff stealing the thunder (sorry) from Doctor Strange in this summer's Multiverse of Madness.  It's just as effective, if not more so, here.  Foster's cancer diagnosis presents something rare in the MCU: a threat that can't be defeated through sheer strength of arms or courage.  It immediately gives the film much more humanity and vulnerability.  Jane's ultimate fate also provides more lasting consequence and impact than usual.  But the film doesn't dwell on the illness; Foster's reappearance (absent in Ragnarok) allows a reconnection with Thor and deeper exploration of the relationship; there's a brief but excellent realistic montage of memories.  And, last but not least, it's really cool to see her as a superhero (with a nifty explanation for it, to boot)!  Thor and Gorr, the villain, are also great.  Thor begins adrift, looking inward after all his personal losses; it's powerful to see him reinvigorated by a focus on others, from Jane to the kidnapped children to Love.  Gorr is one of the strongest villains in the MCU.  Having Christian Bale in the role is obviously a huge advantage, but his origins are also both creative and tragic, and make his final redemption both meaningful and earned.  Valkyrie and Korg don't get a lot to do - there's just not enough room - but their presences are very welcome, too.

Finally, the action and humor - essential aspects of any Marvel movie - are both well done, with some highlights as well as weaker points.  I tend to prefer the more grounded, practical stunts and action scenes, but Thor at least brings effective, imaginative CGI for an entertaining theater experience.  Some sets devolve into somewhat "generic fantasy", as in the Omnipotence City battle and any shadow monsters, but anything with Gorr against Thor and/or Jane and Valkyrie is great (related: I liked that they didn't make Mjolnir "brand new", instead using its shattering as a new ability).  Love and Thunder isn't quite as funny as Ragnarok - which is a high bar to clear - but it still has plenty of laughs, whether it's Thor's awkward (but relatable) goodbye to the Guardians, the great cameos, or the tourist-trap New Asgard.

***

Thor: Love and Thunder is a great return to thrilling summer blockbuster entertainment at the movie theater, following the disappointment of the final Jurassic World.  It would certainly be healthy for the industry if Hollywood didn't have to rely so much on the clockwork excellence and success of Marvel, but it seems to be moving that way more and more.  Critics seem to be tiring of Marvel, with the newest Thor getting a 67% Rotten Tomatoes score; not bad, but significantly down from most Marvel movies despite (in my opinion) little to no actual dip in quality.  Oh, well - their loss.  Looking ahead, the remaining summer schedule looks a bit sparse, but hopefully there will be at least one or two nice surprises ahead.  In the mean time, check this out if you haven't already!

* By https://twitter.com/thorofficial/status/1528915481758797825, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7056633

Jurassic World: Dominion

 

Score: C+

Directed by Colin Trevorrow

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum

Running time: 146 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Jurassic World Dominion concludes a trilogy of films based on Steven Spielberg's classic 1993 blockbuster; unfortunately, it goes out with a whimper.  It's nice to see Malcolm, Grant, and Sattler back in action, but combined with the JW characters and their accompanying plot baggage, it's simply too much (and not well done, at that).  The dinosaurs feel secondary, and not nearly as exciting and scary as they were thirty years ago.  Pass, unless you are a JP diehard like me.

Just a few years after dinosaurs were smuggled off the Jurassic islands and onto the mainland, the previously-extinct animals are now spread across the world.  While this, of course, causes havoc in a number of ways, perhaps the most dangerous creature turns out to be one of the smallest.  Paleobotanist Dr. Sattler (Dern) - one of the first visitors to the doomed Jurassic Park - is called on to investigate, and she reunites with old friend paleontologist Dr. Grant (Neill) to solve the mysterious threat.  Meanwhile, tech company Biosyn kidnaps Maisie (Sermon), a young woman with powerful genetic secrets, and takes her to its secluded headquarters/dinosaur reserve.  As those familiar with the Jurassic world, both old and new, converge, they must together confront a global threat.

Jurassic World: Dominion provides a disappointing finale to the JW trilogy, itself a mere shadow of the original Jurassic films; while there are entertaining moments, the filmmaking is poor.  The first and biggest problem: there are way too many characters and way too much plot for a movie that should be, first and foremost, a thrilling dinosaur adventure.  I do admit that it was nice to have the old stars back, and they are easily the most interesting humans here; Goldblum's Ian Malcolm, in fact, is possibly my favorite part of the whole movie.  Grant and Sattler are also fun, though they are hampered by the poor script.  The drabness of the new characters is more striking when directly compared to the old stars.  Pratt is a fun performer, but the role is too generic; Howard's Claire fares even worse.  While there have always been malevolent humans in the background of Jurassic films, the plotting takes central stage in this film - the new and old characters each get distinct stories, and it's just way too much.  Not to mention how utterly ridiculous the plots are (especially the Maisie one).  The running time is a too-long two-and-a-half hours and not nearly enough of that is dinosaur-focused.

What you come for (or should) in a Jurassic movie are thrilling and/or wondrous dinosaur scenes, and while there are some good moments and cutting edge effects, even here, Dominion disappoints.  The film starts by showing dinosaurs interacting with nature and humans in a gentler manner, which is nice, but the dinosaurs are overly anthropomorphized/domesticated - very much aimed at the kids here.  The violence soon increases (though gore is kept to a minimum), and the most exciting scene is a dinosaur black market-infested Malta exploding into the open, with both a motorcycle chase (reminiscent of Mission Impossible but with, you know, raptors) and some small but neat moments for lesser-known dinos.  Too much of the rest, though, is stale and almost copied from earlier movies, particularly the finale.  Finally, while the technology may be better than ever, the effects still don't feel as real as the original Jurassic Park and The Lost World.  I think this is both the behavior of the dinos - much more like real animals in the originals, versus monsters in the new movies - and Spielberg's superior filmmaking, from the lighting to angles to knowing when and where to show his awe-inspiring stars.

Jurassic Park is my favorite movie; I was spellbound when I saw it in theaters as a six-year-old in 1993, and my affection for it, while different now, is undiminished.  The Jurassic World trilogy - consisting of Jurassic World (2015), Fallen Kingdom (2018), and Dominion - is a far cry from the original classics (I also love The Lost World; Jurassic Park 3 is crap, though).  I'll give the filmmakers and producers credit for one thing, though: they didn't even try, whether through the plots or the tones, to remake Jurassic Park, though of course there are plenty of callbacks.  For young kids, the Jurassic World movies are probably the better choice: more action-packed, while also less scary; far less subtle and more directly emotional/sentimental.  I hope that some day - no hurry, though - there will be more Jurassic movies; but I hope that they are more mature, well-made ones next time.

***

I can't say I was expecting a lot from Jurassic World Dominion; despite my love for Jurassic Park, the previous movie, Fallen Kingdom, pointed in the wrong direction.  So it was disappointing that it didn't even meet my lowered expectations - but it does have me excited to go see the original JP in July, with the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra performing the score (also my favorite of all-time) live!  Looking ahead, the summer movie calendar seems a bit thin, but maybe - hopefully - there will be some surprises that get me out to the theater more than I expect to.  Definitely, I am very much looking forward to Taika Waititi's Thor 4.  Until next time, enjoy the summer - and if you need some blockbuster action, go see Top Gun 2 (even if it's for a second time!) or wait for Thor.

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/jurassic_world_dominion_ver6.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=65516027

Top Gun: Maverick

 

Score:  A

Directed by Joseph Kosinski

Starring Tom Cruise, Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm

Running time: 131 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Top Gun: Maverick revives an obsolete relic of the past, turning the idea of a dated 80s blockbuster into the most exciting theatrical experience in years.  Tom Cruise is still at the helm, and he continues to push the boundaries of the stunt work that he has been hard at work on in the last few years.  The flight scenes - from mere training exercises to pulse-quickening dog fights - are more than worth the price of admission alone.  But the entire thing, human dramatic elements included, is very well done.  This is a must-see.

Decades into a successful career in the Navy, Captain Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Cruise) is still flying planes - and faster than ever before.  He is recalled to the Top Gun training school, however, when an international threat emerges.  With more combat experience than anyone else, Maverick's superiors grudgingly acknowledge that the rebellious ace is the man to teach the newest generation of pilots how to do the job.  While he quickly finds himself at ease in the cockpit, Maverick finds both challenges and opportunities lingering from his past that complicate the situation.  Time is the enemy, however, and Maverick must confront both the angels and the demons of his past in order to meet the challenges of the present.

Top Gun: Maverick is among the best blockbuster films of recent years, an excellent sequel to an iconic 80s hit, combining "old-fashioned" filmmaking with jaw-dropping stunt work and intense action.  While I only vaguely recall the original, Maverick shares much of its basic DNA but it moderates the formula in subtle but important ways.  While Maverick is still an insanely good pilot, his human flaws are highlighted; there is greater gender and racial diversity among the young pilots; and the U.S.A.-vs.-them attitude is muted, focusing less on the anonymous adversary than on their own inner demons.  Similarly, the soundtrack has plenty of callbacks to the 80s movie, but not overwhelmingly so.  It is quite effective in helping bring back certain memories and feelings in some moments, but also works to build overall tension in the action through a more modern sound as well.  A few great needle-drops can't help but bring a big smile to your face, though, too.

While high-speed aerial action is the main goal here, the dramatic elements and even sense of humor are also surprisingly effective.  The key relationship in the film is between Maverick and Rooster, the son of Goose, Mav's co-pilot who died in the original.  It's a familiar dynamic, the young up-and-comer resentful of the veteran with family connections, but still powerful.  It also goes well with an even better element, the film's exploration of Maverick himself.  While he's unmatched in the skies, the movie makes quite plain that Maverick is just like the rest of us down on the ground.  Whether it's awkward encounters with his commanders or visible pain and pleasure as the past comes back to haunt the present, Maverick is a flawed hero, and much more sympathetic as such.  The writers also wisely add humor throughout to break up the tension and let you know it's not taking itself too seriously.  The opening training session in which Maverick puts the whippersnappers in their place (and sends them to the tarmac doing pushups) is great.  My favorite, though, is one that occurs right in the middle of the finale - a risky change in tone, but one that pays off handsomely.

Best of all, of course, is the action, with phenomenal aerial stunt work that simply demands to be seen in a theater.  You feel like you are in the cockpit with these pilots - because you literally are!  The actors grunt and shout authentically according to their situation, as both the tension and the G-forces rise.  I found myself twisting in my own seat, reacting to the jarring rolls left and right during death-defying races just above the ground and to the unpredictability of battle.  Each flight scene is great, and the overall flow of the film is, too - the intensity of these scenes increases steadily throughout.  But while you think you may be ready for the finale by the time it arrives, that you have already seen it all - you ain't seen nothing yet.  The ending is a well-earned triumph, not lingering too long yet addressing all the personal elements that have been patiently developed along the way, further boosted by the exhilaration of the ride.

***

Top Gun: Maverick is an unqualified success, the first great movie of the year I've seen.  While I have reservations about the man, it's undeniable that Tom Cruise is dedicated to his craft.  Not every actor or movie needs to attempt the same audacious stunts, but studios could take a lesson from his example and invest in those with similar vision and passion for film.  I am as big a fan of the Marvel movies as anyone else, but it's essential that Hollywood develop a healthier, more diverse ecosystem of films than just relying on the uber-popular genre of the moment.  I commend Cruise for his support of the theatrical movie experience and his production of art that takes full advantage of the medium.  Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a renaissance in the industry, streaming be damned.

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/top_gun_maverick_ver5.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=70039658