Movie Reviews

Genre: Superhero Movie

Directed: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo

Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Josh Brolin, Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Holland, Chadwick Boseman, Zoe Saldana, Karen Gillan, Paul Bettany, Chris Pratt, Tom Hiddleston, Elizabeth Olsen, Anthony Mackie, Idris Elba, Danai Gurira, Sebastian Stan, Benedict Wong, Peter Dinklage, Pom Klementieff, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Gwyneth Paltrow, Benecio Del Toro, William Hurt, Letitia Wright

Production: Marvel Studios

Yeah, I know I’m going to get comments for this one.

***Light spoilers ahead***

The various friendships, rivalries, insecurities, histories, familial resentments, tragedies, mentorships, romances, controls, framings, interruptions, group dynamics, professional courtesies, aggressions, exploitations and basically any other human interaction that has ever been percolating in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is on full display. And while it’s presumed by now that the audience has at least a passing familiarity with twenty-four or so super beings, thirty-three or so villains (I’m not even including the TV shows) and a host of other important characters, Avengers: Infinity War succeeds in being a sort-of season finale and a statement (or rather re-statement) of purpose. That is to say, without spoiling anything, the MCU is building… towards… something.

Infinity War starts immediately after the end of Thor: Ragnarok (2017). Without getting into major spoiler territory, the film largely centers on a frantic search for six magical MacGuffins, known together as the Infinity Stones, that have been eluded to, if not prominently featured in a few of the other Marvel films. On the one end, there’s Thanos (Brolin) a seemingly invincible creature who wields a golden gauntlet capable of receiving and utilizing the power of the stones. On the other side of things is everyone else; like literally, almost everyone who has ever spun a web, cast a spell or donned an iron suit makes an appearance to put a stop to the genocidal fanatic.

One of Marvel’s biggest strengths is its ability to play one or more well-defined characters against one another for the sake of plot, humor and well-seasoned melodrama. Infinity War borrows an already tested story structure from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) a la splitting our heroes up and having them needle through tangential plot threads until it all loops back into a big, bombastic (if unwieldy) final act. With a principle cast this size, it’s arguably the best move the big-wigs at Disney could have made. Each hero is given a fun, personality-driven dramatic entrance, and just enough dialogue to cue us in on who everyone is to each other. Whether they succeed in growing the characters is a whole other story.

Structure-wise, the problems are two-fold. One: Earth’s mightiest heroes aren’t really split in a way that maximizes engagement. Taking completely from the trailer as to avoid spoilers – you know Thor (Hemsworth) has a run-in with the Guardians which plops two dunderheaded jocks in Thor and Starlord (Pratt) in the same sphere. Doctor Strange (Cumberbatch) and Iron Man (Downey) do meet guaranteeing two vainglorious know-it-alls with goatees annoy each other and Black Panther (Boseman) and Captain America (Evans) team up guaranteeing that two stoic “spirits of the franchise” get to lead a virtual army. Story-wise this all kinda-sorta makes sense but it does result in lopsided moments of redundancy that can’t help but make Infinity War resemble an unwieldy carnival ride.

The second problem is the larger machinations and emotional stakes of the plot, and how they payoff, are wholly at the mercy of ensembles that range from interesting to completely un-engaging. (again, taken from the trailer and larger universe so don’t at-me) Iron Man’s interactions with Spider-Man (Holland), arguably the best part of Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) feels charged and sincere while Gamora’s (Saldana) plot-thread feels forced and turgid. The severe tolls of Thor’s recent activities in the MCU are deeply felt here, but the budding relationship between Vision (Bettany) and Scarlet Witch (Olsen) just isn’t.

And now that I’m explaining it all, it becomes obvious new minds will be positively boggled by this story. It’s already blanketed by loads of exposition but it never feels the need to explain itself other than getting into the tortured mind of its villain Thanos. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; Disney has done such a fine job turning the MCU into an obligatory part of pop-culture that if you don’t know who Thanos is by now, it’s your own d**n fault.

And yet while Josh Brolin turns in an amazing, understated performance, Avengers: Infinity War has in one foul swoop revealed its largest flaw through him. See up until now, the MCU can best be described as a sandbox whereby the creators of each respective mini-franchise can play with and fine-tune stakes and themes without getting tied into a knot over mythology. In retrospect, it’s easy to see how the principal villain in The Avengers (2012) could have easily been The Red Skull, Iron Monger, The Leader or a heretofore unknown villain instead of Loki (Hiddleston). It’s also just as easy to see how, if the franchise was a modicum more stringent, Spider-Man couldn’t have been so seamlessly incorporated into the larger universe.

But by teasing Thanos for six years (and to a much larger extent including Doctor Strange for reasons I can’t really explain because *spoilers*), Disney has basically written themselves into a corner. It’s a corner in which the fanboy side of me is emotionally exhausted and angry about, but the film critic in me is more curious than anything. I’m curious to see where this whole franchise is headed; curious to see what further challenges are in store for Earth’s mightiest heroes and curious to see whether the classical definition of “character arcs” actually hold. This being the first part of what promises to be at least one more blockbuster blowout, I for one am willing to forgive the excess of plot and dearth in character… for now. I just hope they’ll be able to strike a proper balance by this time next year.

Final Grade: C

Movie Reviews

Year: 2018

Genre: Drama

Directed: Brad Anderson

Stars: Jon Hamm, Rosamund Pike, Dean Norris, Shea Whigham, Larry Pine, Mark Pellegrino, Idir Chender, Ben Affan, Leila Bekhti, Alon Abutbul, Kate Fleetwood, Douglas Hodge

Production: Bleecker Street

It’s been a minute since I’ve seen a spy story as tactile and as fascinated with its own inner workings as Beirut. To my recollection the last time I’ve seen something in the ballpark was adapted by a John le Carre novel a la The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965) and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011). Though, the look and feel of Beirut is more reminiscent of the little seen and underappreciated Brad Pitt movie Spy Game (2001), where the young protégé of a retiring CIA agent is taken political prisoner. Much like that movie, which was also written by Tony Gilroy, Beirut elects to make things personal which by in-large is a good move and makes the difference.

Set primarily in 1982, Jon Hamm stars as Mason Skiles, a former diplomat whose retirement from the State Department came after a family tragedy in the titular city. Now a drunk, negotiating local labor disputes, Skiles is once again put in a position of intrigue when a former friend (Pellegrino) is kidnapped by a terrorist splinter group. Asked by name to negotiate a deal, Skiles finds that there’s a lot more at stake in the war-torn capital of Lebanon than first meets the eye.

First and foremost Beirut is a historical fiction with emphasis on the fiction. Many of the major events highlighted by the movie have been altered to fit into an abidingly old-fashioned story about old friends, familial ties and inter-departmental pi**ing contests. Larger events certainly shape these personal conflicts but the political significance of said events take a backseat to create a tighter story, imbue Skiles’s character arc with pathos, and connect Rosamund Pike in way that makes us question whether she exists in this story for good or ill.

In a movie that actively emphasizes the strength of soft power; I personally feel this is the right tact. The film swims in a murky soup of ever changing motives and realities that, even when dumbed down may prove baffling. It’s also far more grounded than some of Tony Gilroy’s other screenplays (cough cough, the Bourne movies, cough cough) which is great for gritty realism and fleetingly interesting for foreign policy wonks, but not immediately engaging for audiences in Peoria.

Thankfully Jon Hamm as our protagonist proves immediately engaging – a master’s class in intelligence and poise. His Skiles is an unwilling hero in a classic sense, but when he stumbles into his first fight-or-flight moments, something in him switches on. He exhibits a natural talent in the art of arbitrage and it’s obvious that he not only takes joy in his work but seems almost addicted to it. The beginning of the film has him in the bottom of a bottle of alcohol, the end of the film has him proudly strutting, looking for the next challenge and happy to be in his element. Could he then, at that moment be considered a symbol for American interventionalism? The epilogue seems to suggest so.

But of course with a movie so old-fashioned and so caught up in the personal stakes of our hero, Beirut reveals a fatal flaw in its lack of diverse viewpoints. French actor Idir Chender plays the only Lebanese character of any significance and his motivations are put into a small enough box as to come across as petty. Much ado is made about Beirut turning into a warzone where before it was “the Paris of the Middle East,” yet very little attention is given to how exactly it became that way. It’s actually kind of unpleasant to consider that if you were to count the minutes of screen time, more attention was given to the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Americans than the actual people living in Lebanon i.e. the Lebanese! And a quick Google search reveals I’m not the only one uncomfortable with this.

Still, given the time period Beirut is supposed to be set in, the absence of voices arguably proves its own form of self-criticism. I wouldn’t put it past director Brad Anderson (who also directed episodes of Treme, The Wire and Fringe), that he made the confluence of white voices angling for influence very purposeful. As if to say the chaos that consumed Lebanon between 1975 and 1990 could have been grappled with, had the country not been used as a pawn in shortsighted geo-political games.

I don’t know – perhaps I’m grasping at straws to justify Beirut’s larger oversights. I’m personally of the opinion that when a movie uses intelligence and craft as opposed to explosions to propel a spy story, it should be supported. I’m of the opinion much of the controversy could have been avoided if they just called it something other than Beirut… Don Draper Among the Ciders, perhaps?

Final Grade: B-

Movie Reviews

Genre: Horror

Directed: John Krasinski

Stars: Emily Blunt, John Krasinski, Millicent Simmonds, Noah Jupe, Cade Woodward, Leon Russom

Production: Platinum Dunes

A Quiet Place is one of those rare movies that is a pleasure to watch but a sonovab***h to review. It’s expertly crafted; a well-plotted suspense thriller full of atmosphere, written with intelligence and acted with aplomb by all actors involved. It’s so well crafted in fact, that revealing anything including what’s in the trailers will pull at certain threads that need not be pulled. It’s so tightly written, everything is important. So I’ll say If you’re one of those people who read reviews before you watch the movie – stop. Watch the movie, skip watching the trailer again and just go watch it. Yes even you who’s not that into horror movies, go watch it through your fingers if you have to.

What can be gathered from the trailer is that the film follows a tight-knit upstate New York family, forced to live in absolute silence. There’s the stalwart plaid-wearing father (Krasinski), the tough, resourceful and very pregnant mother (Blunt) and three children (Simmonds, Jupe and Woodward) all of whom cannot make a noise…ever. If any one of them snaps a twig, stubs a toe or talks, vicious monsters come out of the nearby woods and whisk them away most likely to devour them.

Knowing this already has you knowing too much – the premise bakes into the mechanics of the plot so seamlessly into the story as a whole that they become crucial. Any screenplay worth its salt meticulously sets up series of setups and payoffs. But what A Quiet Place’s script, written by Bryan Woods and Scott Beck does is it launches into its setups and payoffs then leaves them standing. It’s like a minefield that hasn’t been cleared long after war. The deafening silence combined with exposed dangers and a natural lack of communication leads to unfathomable amounts of stress for the characters and an almost un-ingestible amount of suspense for the audience.

I won’t name any examples but I ask you just at a glance, how many things in your periphery right now, are capable of making noise? What could you do to prevent the familiar creak of a door, the zip of a zipper, the scrape of porcelain plate on porcelain plate? Would you stow things away? Sound-proof your stuff? Put everything on a shelf down on the floor? Imagine trying to live that way. Try as you might, there will always be the risk something will sound and with that comes immediate death at the hands of a deadly enemy.

As for the enemy themselves, director/lead John Krasinski does an excellent job exposing them in pieces as opposed to a large, spindly whole. Much of the time we’re exposed to them through their impact whether it is through the clomping of their gigantic hind legs or through their ability to slice straight through steel with ease. When the creatures are finally visible, the special-effects team must have worked overtime to make sure their CGI monsters remained the stuff of nightmares. In retrospect, they look a little too much like a mix between the creatures from Stranger Things (2016-Present) and Cloverfield but at least they’re north of The Mummy (2017).

Again, I’m saying too much and I would behoove you to just watch A Quiet Place for yourself to judge the story through the pulpiness of its premise and the resourcefulness of its execution. Just keep in mind, the true magic of A Quiet Place is not that it gets you to an anxious place but rather that it keeps you there and leaves you whimpering in your seat.

Final Grade: A-

Movie Reviews

Year: 2018

Genre: Sci-Fi Action

Directed: Steven Spielberg

Stars: Tye Sheridan, Olivia Cooke, Ben Mendelsohn, Lena Waithe, T.J. Miller, Simon Pegg, Mark Rylance, Philip Zhao, Win Morisaki, Hanna John-Kamen, Ralph Ineson, Susan Lynch, Perdita Weeks

Ready Player One is a Steven Spielberg directed blockbuster movie based on the Ernest Cline novel of the same name. The story follows an enterprising eighteen-year-old named Wade (Sheridan) who, much like the rest of humanity in 2045, spends most of his time in The Oasis, an interactive virtual reality world. “The real world sucks,” says Wade as justification for his hours of play time as his alter ego Parzival. But when the death of Oasis creator James Halliday (Rylance) sets off an elaborate treasure hunt, Parzival along with his friends Art3mis (Cooke), Aech (Waithe), Daito (Morisaki) and Sho (Zhao) all race to collect three keys. Said keys unlock a secret Easter egg, long ago hidden in the game that grants the winner of the contest full control of The Oasis.

Part of the challenge to translating the story of Ernest Cline’s novel is introducing a sci-fi dystopian future where there are countless moving parts, loads of exposition and interconnected minutiae and, I can’t stress this enough, a treasure trove of geek-culture references. Director Steven Spielberg, an unabashed top-tier, popular culture producer himself makes a wise decision by completely omitting most of the geek ephemera from the story proper and instead concentrates on the mechanics of the plot. There are a lot of references, don’t get me wrong, but they’re there for the sake of being there and neither add nor take anything away from Parzival’s treasure hunt or character growth.

Of course, this becomes less of an asset and more of a liability as the plot drudge forth, and the polish of the special-effects becomes less beguiling. There are a handful of “eureka” moments stressed by the segments of the Back to the Future score, where characters draw a connection between this or that and Halliday’s curiously curated thoughts, memories and psychology. This proves un-engaging as we only get to know Halliday through archival footage (?) and due to the firmly established rules of the game; we know the “clues” just have to come from him. We’re spoon-fed plot points again and again instead of having an opportunity to actually participate with our heroes.

Granted when compared to the book, using this tact is actually much better. Gone are the puzzles whose measure of success is wholly dependent on whether you’ve seen WarGames (1983) a hundred times; replaced by meaningful “creator” knowledge that actually ignites lasting character changes. But while it definitely works in the service of fleshing out characters that, let’s be honest, need to be fleshed out, it’s not a good way to keep an audience engaged.

Arguably to off-set that, the movie hedges its bets, by focusing as much time on the villains as it does on the heroes. As Parzival, Art3mis, the Big Guy, what’s his name and the other guy do their thing, evil businessman Nolan Sorrento (Mendelsohn) and his army of “Sixers,” are hot on their heels, hoping the turn “the world’s most valuable resource” (no kidding, the phrase was actually uttered) into a tiered cash cow…because obvious internet neutrality metaphor is obvious.

But even as Ben Mendelsohn does wonders balancing the menace of an omni-powerful corporate suit with the petulance of a John Hughes bad guy, hanging out with him and the constantly vamping Hanna John-Kamen just gets irksome as the film plods along. It would have been a lot better if the movie spent a little more time actually getting to know our heroes outside their avatars or at the very least, get to know why their avatars are their avatars. Seriously, in a world where you can literally be anything you want to be, why would you want to be Mario or Megatron or The Iron Giant over anything else? Seems like that, more than anything, would be a great starting point for getting to know a character. Alas, aside from one solid reality versus virtual reality reveal, the movie doesn’t really do much with that premise. 

Thankfully everything the movie does right more than makes up for any lost opportunities. Every artifact and character introduced by the film has their time to shine and because the story comes in such a tight package, we get to share in the triumphs. And because this is a Spielberg joint, Ready Player One comes with his trademarked playfulness and childlike wonder which, let’s face it, has always been enough to make even the blandest of screenplays palatable (cough, cough BFG).

Additionally, there are some real cast standouts. As said before, Mendelsohn is pitch-perfect as our villain even if he does suffer from over-exposure. Likewise, Mark Rylance’s Halliday is arguably more sympathetic than the protagonist despite the fact that he does a marvelous job keeping him as enigmatic as possible. Finally, while T.J. Miller is never seen outside of his avatar and his character mainly exists so audiences can say “hey that’s the voice of T.J. Miller,” he’s just so perfectly casted as the appropriately named “i-R0k”.

“Some people can read ‘War and Peace’ and come away thinking it’s a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.” This quote, along with an elongated plot sequence referencing The Shining (1980) seems to be calling out fans of the book and not in a good way. There are a lot of changes; a lot of, I would argue, good changes that don’t necessarily change the spirit of the story. Nevertheless, there will probably be a small but vocal faction of people who will cry foul over this adaptation-in-name-only and hijack the conversation.

If you’re one of those people, may I offer a slightly different perspective? Maybe instead of arguing over the minutia of a disposable movie adaptation of a disposable book, we should be arguing, or at least wondering aloud how much of today’s culture we actually have control over. After all, full-emersion VR is just around the corner and its actually quite scary to think that as IP law stands now, the only reason you can even see something like Ready Player One in theaters is because there’s only one man alive today who has Spielbergian clout. You try to do the same on Youtube and I guarantee things won’t go well for you.

Final Grade: C+

Movie Reviews

Year: 2018

Genre: Animated Comedy

Directed: Wes Anderson

Stars: Bryan Cranston, Koyu Rankin, Edward Norton, Bob Balaban, Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Kunichi Nomura, Akira Takayama, Greta Gerwig, Frances McDormand, Akira Ito, Liev Schreiber, Courtney B. Vance,  Scarlett Johansson, Harvey Keitel, F. Murray Abraham, Yoko Ono, Tilda Swinton, Ken Watanabe

Production: Indian Paintbrush

Decades of fan worship and a reliable ability to make a modest profit has cultivated a well-manicured brand for director Wes Anderson. His trademark, storybook framing, first perfected in his debut Bottle Rocket (1996), has since – like a Christmas tree – become only more ornate over time. His films now host incredibly large named casts, clever references to classic film and literature, an eye for color theory and architecture, mounds of exposition told via droll wit and a pedigreed ear for melancholy musical cues.

Thus for some, Isle of Dogs may be a bit of a letdown. Don’t get me wrong, the film exhibits all the usual Anderson-isms we’ve come to know and love. But unlike, say The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) or Moonrise Kingdom (2012) which are great but often times feel like lavish victory laps, Isle of Dogs seems to want achieve a different end. It actually seems to want to engage the audience in an emotional level as opposed to a strictly intellectual one. The results are largely delightful but sometimes create narrative discord.

Allow me to explain:

The plot takes place in Japan, twenty years in the future. Mayor Kobayashi (Nomura) the despotic, dog-hating leader of Megasaki City, has banished all dogs to a far away trash island. In a fit of anger the mayor’s 12-year-old nephew and ward, Atari (Rankin) hijacks a small plane and travels to the island in search of his old dog Spot (Schreiber). He’s aided in his quest by a pack of former pets, and one stray played by Cranston…who bites. Meanwhile back on the mainland, a group of students led by American exchange student, Tracy Walker (Gerwig) try to uncover the truth behind the dog flu outbreak that led to quarantine and banishment.

Now despite a lot of bells and whistles, the conflict of Isle of Dogs is pretty easy to follow. A rag-tag group of friends face off against technologically superior villains who think they know best but are really conniving, power-hungry hypocrites. The plot then engages the audience via a series of near-captures and hijinks culminating in a “let’s-get-them-where-they-live” climax that ends in a heartfelt speech (or in this case a haiku).

Anderson and his creative team have worked with this particular mold in the similar Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009), which also employed serene and sophisticated stop-motion animation. But unlike Fantastic Mr. Fox, Isle of Dogs has a lot more emotion at its core due largely to its boy-and-his-dog narrative. You want Atari to be reunited with Spot; in fact, you want to see all the other dogs reunited with their humans. Thus there’s just naturally more emotional charge in the exchange of a snappy snack than can ever be gained by Mr. Fox indulging in his wildest natures.

The language barrier (most of the human characters speak Japanese while the dogs speak English), rather than being a hindrance actually becomes an asset. Instead of concentrating on the nuances of language and dialogue, the audience is forced to really observe facial expressions, body-language and voice inflection. Moreover there are a number of symbols and visual cues that strengthen the inner desires of characters and bonds between them, and do a much better job showing affection, loyalty, anger etc. than mere words ever could.

The only time it really becomes a liability is when Anderson’s gut instincts for homage get in the way of the practicalities of the story. Rather than settling for straightforward close-ups to gleam character faces, Anderson opts for showy DePalma-esque money-shots and medium shots that only feel tentatively motivated and do little to further the plot. His also often borrows the frame-within-a-frame construct which works for a while but becomes an obvious last-act stumble, where before it did a lot to create a unique sense of whimsy.

Narratively there’s also the minor issue of Tracy, who under the right lens typifies the deservedly maligned white-savior trope. Given that she almost needed to speak English for the sake of a solid B-story, I’m inclined to forgive this, but on the other hand there are a myriad of other ways to making this part of the movie work and they went with something wordy, ashen and childlike…in other words: boilerplate Anderson.

That said Anderson’s mastery of the deep focus works incredibly well during the lighter moments. Rather than being intimating and out of balance a la Citizen Kane (1941), Cinematographer Tristan Oliver makes sure that his frames always allow for total emersion. It’s playful, fun and sure to incite laughter even if you’re often times not sure why. Moreover when deep focus is not utilized, it’s obvious, it’s jarring and it serves a purpose. Nowhere does this work better than when characters like Chief (Cranston) suddenly see their goals figuratively and literally out of focus.

Of course it helps that Isle of Dogs has a brilliant voice cast. Among the core group, Cranston, Edward Norton and Jeff Goldblum are immediate standouts with Goldblum possibly replacing “life, ah, finds a way” with “You know, I heard a rumor…” as my new favorite catchphrase of his. Scarlett Johansson and F. Murray Abraham also make the most out of their parts as coquetteish love interest and de facto narrator respectively. Also, if you ever wanted to know what Tilda Swinton’s voice sounds like coming out of a pug, you’ll know during the course of this movie and it’s just as funny as it sounds.

Isle of Dogs is a rare breed indeed. For while there are some obvious stumbling blocks, it may very well mark a turning point for a director who is the closest thing to a cult of personality in films nowadays. I’m not sure if fans of the usual, ornate, quasi-intellectual filigree will see it my way. They may very well see Isle of Dogs as his weakest film (his weakest is still Royal Tenenbaums; f**king fight me). Regardless, there’s something much more beguiling on the screen this time around. It’s fun to see a master ebbing into something new even if that means the possibility of falling flat on their face. I’m excited to see what Anderson will do next.

Final Grade: B