Sunday, June 17, 2018



From Alex Garland, the writer of one of my favorite movies, 28 Days Later. I wanted to be biased for this film.

Biologist Lena (Natalie Portman) goes through a mysterious shimmering wall in search of answers as to what it is and what it did to her husband Kane (Oscar Isaac). Lots of super weird things happen that are ostensibly explained through the imagery of a cell replicating and an overarching idea of biology blending inside "The Shimmer." In the end she more or less knows what happened to her husband due to some videos he shot while inside, and even gets him back, but overall the mystery is little more than an occasionally creepy or cool roller coaster of disappointments.

Whenever a Why is explained about The Shimmer, it's not a revelation. It's just ... "Oh ok."

I don't mind it out of principle. I'm totally okay with a movie not explaining itself, or using an umbrella explanation like "this unexplainable thing is making unexplainable things happen." I quite enjoyed it earlier this year when The Cloverfield Paradox utilized it. The two were received like polar opposites, but from my seat -- at home on my couch -- they're remarkably similar. Annihilation felt very much like a Netflix film -- in both the good way and the bad. Bad in that it was less than advertised, and good in that it was an original and well-assembled film.

It has practiced pacing, a slow increase of tension throughout, and a firm grip on how to build a quality moment. Each one gets ruined later of course. Sometimes preemptively through flash-forward interrogation scenes. It's like the exposition scenes are there because there was no confidence in the audience's ability to understand visual storytelling. The dialogue is reiteration of what we've seen but simplified; making it all feel mundane. But the curious moments in and of themselves work well. Disregarding the glaring soft white light, the cinematography is thoughtful and fits the style, and there are moments when the score is mesmerizing.

I presume the idea was the lights and colors were blended like everything in The Shimmer -- a neat idea in theory, but visually unpleasant. It gave an eye-ache. 

It's in the details that the movie most shows signs of life. Though many moments were ruined by the too-revealing trailer, including the return of the bear. Though it having Sheppard's voice was still a wonderfully disturbing feature. Also interesting: the guy who'd grown into the wall like a clicker from The Last of Us, the tree people, Kane's bear-rose tattoo, Lena's tattoo which appears on her arm and is also visible on Anya and Last of Us Dude; and the end sequence was extremely unusual to say the least. Things like the tattoos are just tidbits. Others like Dude and the trees are explained in ways that sucks out all the wonder while never satisfying your curiosity.

"Everything gets blended." Great, cool idea, but that's not an explanation, it's just a description of the result. Why? How? Is it good or bad? Why should we care? Scientific terms are used, but it's not challenging to understand. This movie was advertised like another Interstellar; promising mind-bending, science-y scifi. It spends half its time in exposition, but it never goes deeper than the main idea. I can't have my mind blown over the same thing twice, no matter how many times its illustrated. And they introduce many potentially strange things, only to explain them away in the same disengaging way over and over.

The rules were all-encompassing, so I accepted everything that happened unfazed.

The movie falters equally as a horror film, for the same reasons -- less than advertised, and lack of exploration leaves potentially disturbing elements as merely weird, so the terrifying things such as the bear are left as fleeting external threats. It's unclear if the alien being was meant to be viewed as a threat. Characters talk about it in an understanding way, but it's pattern is one of causing death, and the film ends with Lena tricking it into self-destructing instead of herself self-destructing for it. The Shimmer still exists inside Lena and Kane, so presumably it lives on -- but if it's a representation of self-destruction, isn't that bad?

"It wasn't destroying. It was making something new." "Making what?" "I don't know." That exchange sums up everything. We're meant to look at it positively but are given no reason why. Not even a vague one that invites interpretation. It seems to clash with the film's theme of self-destruction and replication. There's also a cancer thread that goes maddeningly unexplored. The movie only ever points out things; details that tie together into a meaningless theme. It's all very tidy and interesting, but at some point, I need satisfaction, and something concrete to hold on to.

"Kind of a lame movie." -- My Dad. It's not that it lacks the proper features; it just doesn't work them properly. 

As a drama, it's weird and very hit-or-miss. I liked what the actresses did to give an extra smidgen of personality to their characters, but the supporters are given one or two lines of exposition dialogue as their character development, and it doesn't go far. I liked Sheppard's quiet, matter-of-fact manner. And a clear thematic reason for all the cancer mentioned was missed. Oscar Isaac and Natalie Portman are good together. So good that I found it a stretch that she'd cheat on him. The idea is introduced that self-destruction is in our DNA, so she can't help it, but the ending was meant to counter that, I believe.

Never lacking something odd to look at, the main fault I have with Annihilation is that I looked hard for answers to the mysteries beneath the oddities, and the hidden intelligence I thought I'd been promised; I was prepared and ready to have my mind challenged, but I never found anything inside to interpret. It was all a pretty shell; and when laid bare, the fascination crumbles.

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Solo: A Star Wars Story



In its long and not at all reassuring build-up and production, the biggest apprehension I had over this film was the casting of Han Solo. Turns out, that's the one thing they got right.

I won't even argue if he was miscast. I don't know and don't care about that. He put in a heck of an effort and saved the whole movie as far as I'm concerned. And Chewie helped. Man, I wish the movie had just been about them...

This project is so convoluted I have no idea how anything got done at all, but now that I've seen it, I imagine a Think Tank for this film that goes something like:

"Okay fellas, what should the plot be for this Han Solo solo movie?"
"It could show his home planet, and how he leaves."
"It could be about how he meets Chewie!"
"Or about how he meets Lando."
"I think it should be about the Kessel Run."
"I want to know how he got his blaster."
"Shush, Karl."
"It should be about him being a pilot and a smuggler."
"What's the most important thing about Han? The Falcon! It's gotta be about how he gets her."
"I think it should have romance."
"Shut up Karl!"
"Ooh, I know! The origin of his NAME!"
"Karl! I swear--"
"Okay now fellas, listen up, I've got it -- we'll make it about ALL those things!"
"Even Karl's?"
"Cool, who should play the love interest?"
"Ooooh! Oooooooh!"
"Yes, Karl?"
"Emilia Clarke!"
".... Brilliant."


In short, the only idea that was worse than all the small ideas that made up the plot of this film was the main idea that it should be a film at all. I held out hope that it had potential -- I did. But there is only one feature in this pile of a result that I'm willing to give any significant amount of praise to, and that is Alden Ehrenreich. He tried his damnedest, I'm sure he did. Maybe he was trying to salvage his career at some point, but he really gave 110% and I think his career is intact. While pros like Harrelson and Bettany were phoning in, he was searching for an impossible balance between an impression, and an original interpretation, and the pleasing of different directors with different visions, and honestly, well done to him.

Han isn't written well. He has no character arc and is constantly overshadowed by inferior characters. Every time the plot starts heading in a direction that might lead somewhere interesting for him, it quickly diverts back to the safety of fan service. But this I can say for Ehrenreich: he did everything he could with what he had. He performed admirably. There were moments where you could see a glimmer of Harrison Ford inside him, and there were times when you forgot who he was supposed to be at all and he briefly became his own thing. And he gave the acting side way more than was necessary for a movie like this. Even if it was a good Star Wars movie he didn't have to be that good.

This particular one features an insufferable SJW robot and decides that it's just too far-fetched that Solo might be his real name. A pinnacle of filmmaking, it is not.

The rest of the movie is garbage -- as someone has said about its iconic ship. Garbage; mildly assembled into something that if you tilt you head and squint and the lighting is juuuust right has some semblance of a scifi action adventure plot. It's got everything the "Think Tank" members came up with. None of it works. If they had picked one thing and focused hard on that, maybe it could have pulled off the decency level of Rogue One. Instead it never spends enough time anywhere to do anything except serve some fans while simultaneously irritating others.

I didn't care for the idea that Han might have fought for the Empire, but if the movie had been about that they could have given a good reason; expanded on what they had and convinced me why it makes sense and matters. Make something matter for goodness sake! There was so much jumping around and switching of tracks that absolutely nothing stuck. Ideally, I think the movie should've been smaller. Cut out characters; cut mini origin stories for things that don't matter; give Han a character arc and make us care for the new iteration of him. Have him do something that isn't inspired by one line of dialogue from a forty-year-old movie.

The number of times they edge on something good, and the glimpses of a compelling character he gives us, are downright infuriating. 

This movie is afraid of intimacy. Afraid that if passion and dedication had been given to any part, it would've been the wrong part, and people would hate it. So, they compromised, and threw in everything they had in one sheepish haul, shrugged, and figured it would do in a pinch. Well, I still hate it, and if they had really tried -- like their star of a star -- and produced something that had actually been handcrafted, but not what I wanted, I could at least have told them good job on the effort. Instead, production-line mediocrity leaves me number than ever. Is it time for the rebellion yet?

Tuesday, June 12, 2018


In this relaxed thriller, Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a very unhappy teen living in a very uncomfortable lap of luxury. She hates her step-father (Paul Sparks) but suppresses and hides her emotions. One person she can't hide from is her childhood friend Amanda (Olivia Cooke). When they reconnect after a while, Amanda admits that she is incapable of feeling emotion, and as a result is perceptive enough to see through Lily's mask. She's also supremely cold and logical, so when she suggests that Lily might murder her mean step-father, the idea... rather takes hold.

Good breeding doesn't mean beans when it comes to the human heart.

The prominent feature here is character study. It's character study mostly by observation because characters never analyze themselves and when they analyze each other is more often says more about the character doing the analyzing. We watch them interact and make decisions and slowly a clear picture emerges. The movie utilizes every facet at its disposal, both in technical film techniques and the more organic ones, creating a machine of many moving parts that work together to point to the same conclusion.

On the "well, duh" side: casting, acting, and characterization. Olivia Cooke's naturally blank deadpan is fascinating in that you would never learn a thing about her from watching her face. For her, we must look to body language, dialogue because Amanda is an honest person, and decisions. Decisiveness is important to Amanda and she has a solid, if skewed view of morality. With Anya Taylor-Joy, her emotions boil under her face, and while she tries to hide behind a stone mask, what does leak through is the good stuff. Emotion drives her and overcomes her sense of morality.

Who's the real psycho here...?

These two characters are almost opposites, and as such they inform our understanding of each as we compare them. Then you must add Anton Yelchin's character to the mix, because without his Tim, there's not quite an ideal balance. Tim is older, less privileged, already has mistakes under his belt, and aspires to be like the two girls already are. He wants wealth and power, and think he has what it takes to achieve that through dealing drugs. But without anti-social disorders or a lifetime of oppressed emotion and lying, that's a path that he's surprisingly ill-equipped to take.

Next, and probably my favorite aspect of the film is the camerawork. Long Takes is the name of the game, but not in a showy, complicated, "look at me" kind of way. It's simple: the camera is placed in a spot where it can view a whole scene with only adjusting focus as a character moves in and out... and it watches. It doesn't decide for us which part of the performance is the most telling; it stays out of our way. Zoom-ins are used to express importance of the moment, and there's plenty of shot-reverse-shot too. I think the idea was to capture the story and character is the simplest, most comfortable, and most effective way possible.

Love him. There's still movies of his I haven't seen, but I never want to finish them.

You don't want to notice shot length or the reasoning behind a shot composition while watching; you just want it to make the desired effect. With this not showy but intentional method, it did its job -- I had to watch it again to pick up on it fully, spurred by the longest oner -- a three-minute one that was masterful. I adore watching films with minimal cutting and being able to see performances play out -- to be allowed to look at what I want to, instead of the camera's framing forcing me to look somewhere where I don't see performance coming from. When a performance is as good as this cast gives, different people will see it in different places.

Even with their backs to the camera they are still readable, and when they're off screen the sound effects take over, and you'd might be surprised at how telling they can be too. Paring the heightened moments that would tend to overload down to only sound focuses the tension and engages the imagination. And it allows the film to keep it's deliberate, relaxed pace even through the crazier parts. The soundtrack also needs a mention: it's mainly spastic tribal drums which is hilariously fitting to the otherworldly setting. At one point a character's running footsteps could be easily confused for scoring too.

It's all so wonderfully strange.

Despite dark subject matter and the character study of extremely flawed humans that you'd rather be fascinated by than identify with, the film is well grounded in entertainment. Richly comic in wonderfully subtle and dark ways that works alongside the film's other moods for beautiful and unexpected combinations. My favorite bit was Ave Maria playing as Tim slow-motion smells soap and caresses a shiny red car in Lily's fancy house. Drop-dead gorgeous. I also loved watching the girls act in front of mirrors, and the neat detail where Amanda only uses the pawns and knights as she plays chess with herself.

Thoroughbreds is stimulating to watch, never lacking visual interest on screen that draws the eye and engages the mind, so even as the film moves casually and methodically it is not for one second boring. Its fascinating characters aren't spelled out for us, and the final delivery isn't a message or moral, but simply a few character journeys that will make you think hard about their situation, their burdens, and their decisions. We are invited not to judge, but to understand -- as we are entertained by the film's lavish, well-bred existence.

Friday, June 1, 2018

Upcoming Movie Roundup - June

In May I got the surprise of the year when I went to see Deadpool 2, and absolutely loved it! Read my review here. My favorite superhero movie since Spider-Man: Homecoming. It was very R-rated, but used its rating with more discretion than the first one, making it more loyal in tone to the comics. The jokes hit and Deadpool "dies" a lot in some awesome action scenes which was something the last one sorely missed. I'll probably see Solo soonish too. Maybe today.

Let the summer officially begin! What's been your favorite of the year so far? And what are you looking forward to next? Let me know in the comments. With five Fridays in June there's LOTS to look at this month! Let's get to it:

Jun 1st; R
This looks like a fun hardcore action flick. One neat premise -- where an AI implant allows a crippled man to go on a revenge spree -- that's just about as catered to the R-rated action genre as a premise can be. I expect some of the plot will be familiar, but that's okay by me as long as it's done well. The action looks great -- by the cinematography mostly. I really like it when the camera is far enough away so we can actually see what's going on, and doesn't cut every half-second. Plus -- those spin moves. This one's out today, and already has enough good reviews that I'm definitely interested to see it for myself.

American Animals
Jun 1st; R
Also out today, and also getting some good reviews. This one caught my attention with it's cast of Barry Keoghan and Evan Peters, but finding out more about it, my interest has only been dropping since. It definitely looks like a well made movie; I just expect that the plot would irritate and stress me out. I don't know anything about the real-life event, but I seriously doubt this movie could end well. It's the sort of thing I'd watch when it's streaming for free.

Jun 1st; PG-13
Hopefully that's the last time I ever have to see a trailer for this movie. (Update: It wasn't.) As far as true stories go, I'd a million times rather watch the above than this, even though I expect this one has a happy ending. Shailene Woodley and Sam Claflin are meant to be a big draw (Tris and Finnick, together at last! Wait...) but for me it has the opposite effect. I'm so full of ugh over this movie, but I had to include it, to say no thank you. So -- no thank you!

Jun 1st; NR
Simon Baker directs, based on a novel. It's set in the 70's in Australia, and it appears to be a coming of age type movie with surfing. So that's all different and interesting. I'm not much a surfing movie fan, but I do like a good coming of ager. Will keep an eye open.

All Summers End
Jun 1st; NR
I heard about this movie in 2014 whenever Tye Sheridan had a few guest appearances on Last Man Standing as Kaitlyn Dever's boyfriend. I wonder why it took so long to be released, but that explains why they look so young. This is the sort of movie I'll be watching, disregarding reviews, without expecting much. Any other day I might not have given it a second look, but it's got Tye Sheridan, and I've low-key been waiting for four years, so....

Ocean's 8
Jun 8th; PG-13
Oh boy. Another Ghostbusters, or something actually good this time? I expect more the former. I'd be much more interested even if they weren't trying to bank of the Ocean's movies. Whether you call it a remake a reboot or a sequel, it can't help but feel like it's clutching onto the boys for support instead of trying to stand on its own high-heeled legs. Maybe it can stand on its own; maybe it can't. It's just a matter of principle, and one of the warning signs of a bad film.

Jun 8th; R
YIKES. This looks like a great horror movie. Which is why I'll probably never watch it.

Hotel Artemis
Jun 8th; R
If I ever watch this, it will be for Jeff Goldblum and sunglasses cinematography. I dunno, I mean, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it. It's got a nice cast, a scifi kind of premise. A siege plot. A nice look. It's just not appealing to me in any significant way. If it ever does, I'll be there.

Incredibles 2
Jun 15th; PG
I know everyone's excited about this, I just find it hard not to be cynical about sequels, even when it's Pixar. Not that Pixar has exactly been up to par recently. There are two main things about this sequel that gives me hope: One, Brad Bird is back. That is extremely comforting. And two, Jack-Jack's portal superpowers. I love that. So we'll see I guess!

The Yellow Birds
Jun 15th; R
Hmm. Alden Ehrenreich and Tye Sheridan war movie. Oh and Toni Collette. She has quite a few movies coming out this month. I don't think the movie looks particularly good, and I'm not generally big on modern war films, but I may give it a shot sometime for the cast.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
Jun 22nd; PG-13
I seriously doubt that I'll enjoy this one as much as I did the first Jurassic World, but I also expect that I'll be seeing it in theaters. Unless it really bombs. Chris Pratt has lost some of his appeal to me, but I'm sure he can still carry a movie with star-power. And I'm sure the dinos will look great on the big screen. And hey, this one has Rafe Spall in it. He's probably a bad guy, but that's okay. He's great.

Under the Silver Lake
Jun 22nd; R
Haha wow, this movie looks like it was made for Andrew Garfield; perfect for him in a way no one could have guessed kind of thing. Intriguing and bizarre. My only real question is: how did that girl go swimming and still have all her makeup be so perfect and completely not smudged??

The Catcher was a Spy
Jun 22nd; R
Paul Rudd leading a great cast; WWII spy movie. But, true story, so I guess I should find out what happens before I watch it. Looks kinda fun and kinda serious. I'd be willing to give it a go, even just for Rudd. I was like "Catcher of what?" and then I watched the trailer.

Sicario: Day of the Soldado
Jun 29th; R
The first one was a good movie, and when this one was announced I figured it'd be terrible, especially when I heard Emily Blunt wasn't in it. But really, it's going in such a different direction, I think I've changed my mind. It looks fun; very different from the first, but still with Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin's characters. Brolin in on a roll this summer, my goodness. So I doubt it'll have the immaculate and intentional filmmaking of the first, but I also doubt it'll be a waste of time.

Leave no Trace
Jun 29th; PG
Looks like a sweet movie. Also a good movie for hermits. From the writer/Director of Winter's Bone, whoever that is. And that was a good movie, so sure; advertise that. But one of the blips here compares this girl to Jennifer Lawrence is a completely blatant way, and that seems unfair. Salt-of-the-earth people aren't really that scarce, and I'm sure one could think of a way to praise this girl's performance and demeanor without resorting to such laziness.

Woman Walks Ahead
Jun 29th; R
Sam Rockwell? Sign me up, boys! Although the movie looks to be so full of politics that it doesn't have any room for anything else, I'll give it a chance for Sam. Jessica Chastain is great too. I'm sure she makes an excellent lead. And modern-made westerns are a fun thing. Or at least they can be. We'll see what happens.

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Deadpool 2


The Merc with a Mouth is back and better than ever. Who says sequels aren't a good idea? While the first one felt like a dirty, joyless slog, this one finds its feet and a healthy relationship with the comics to produce a blast of a romp of a joyride that is what I've always hoped and envisioned a Deadpool movie could be.

Suddenly I'm not so tired of superhero movies anymore!

This time there's actually a plot, as Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) sets out to protect a troubled young mutant Russell, aka Firefist (Julian Dennison) from Cable (Josh Brolin) a time-traveler from the future looking to kill the kid. It's The Terminator, it's Back to the Future, it's X-Men: Days of Future Past -- only it goes about it such a confident and straight-forward way, that though you may call it cliched, in my eyes it became a main reason the film worked so well.

As an action-comedy, plot originality and complexity shouldn't be all that high on the priority list. This plot serves the movies genre. Action; comedy. The time-travel element particularly lends itself to some exceptional hilarity, and the solid action beats it calls for are fundamental and easy to follow. On that level its basic, straightforward entertainment. But then, it builds on that, with character arcs, complete with depth, emotion, empathy, morals and themes; all woven together seamlessly, complementing and working with the plot. This isn't a character piece, but they are far from neglected.

Directed by David Leitch, who didn't direct the first one, and that makes a lot of sense.

I knew avocado-faced Wade had it in him to be an empathetic character, and I knew Reynolds could play drama and not have it come out dumb and cheesy, and I'm so glad they didn't spend the whole film relentlessly cracking jokes. The ebb and flow between humor and drama here is nearly indistinguishable, and at times played simultaneously, neither interfering, but actually enhancing each other. It is a comedy, so laugh-out-loud punch lines are as common as the CGI, but the movie doesn't force loud humor into where it doesn't belong, and strangely for R-rated fare, there's plenty of soft, warm-hearted and subtle humor too.

The humor is often not appropriate, but it is used appropriately. Ironically, the ruder the jokes got, the more likely to be forced they seemed to be. Like the priority of jokes tended more toward being "R" than fitting the moment, and sometimes they just weren't funny but were used because of how "R" they were. That seemed to happen with the F-words too. Jokes can be funny with, and even enhanced by foul language, but adding random words to an awkwardly-delivered F-bomb doesn't automatically make it hilarious.

That's just f---tastically stupid.

The dirty rudeness was the low point for me, but at the same time, they delivered so much humor that did hit, with such joy and aplomb, that I felt it would've been extremely ungrateful of me to not grant them a little room for potty-mouth fans. Forgiving their indulgence was, I found, super easy. Even as one particular joke dragged on for minutes that I wasn't finding all that funny, I couldn't help but smile, because it was clear that those involved were having a blast with it, and the good-humored fun was contagious even when the jokes didn't land.

I'm trying my hardest not to directly compare this film with Infinity War, but I'm pausing now to say that though the plot was basic, and humor was the main goal, Deadpool still involved me more, made it easy to care, and I wish Disney/Marvel could get back to being this gleefully entertaining. Also, there was one death scene that was miles better than anything Infinity War failed to contrive. And that leads me to Josh Brolin, because he was in both these movies -- as a villain -- who's meant to be sympathetic.

What a legend.

An absolute legend.

I don't suppose it was his fault that Cable beats Thanos with a stick. A ripped, scarred old man with a Winter Solider arm is automatically better than a grape with a chin, but even with half the time devoted, Cable practically bursts with nuance and gritty sympathy. And he's just cool. There's no other way to describe it. Then Wade is all goof and charm, and the mixture is a goldmine of epic fan moments. The banter; the chemistry; the fights. It's enough to make you giddy as the entertainment level leaps off the chart.

Julian Dennison as Russell was a great addition, proving it wasn't at all a fluke how funny and dramatic he could be in Hunt for the Wilderpeople. Morena Baccarin returns as Vanessa, and was lovely and charming, and the romance in this movie was so much better than it had any right to be. I'd try to tell Deadpool that he can't possibly do everything well and should pick a genre, but clearly, I would be the wrong party in that argument. I was sad to see so little of Bill Skarsgård, but hey, it was Bill Skarsgård. And Zazie Beetz as Domino. Such a cinematic superpower, my goodness. And her cheerfully sassy personality fit right in.

Hardcore, awesome, super lucky -- what's not to be cheerful about?

It was nice that references were topical -- mentions of debated issues such as cultural appropriation -- but remained apolitical about it all. Never setting out to take sides or genuinely insult, but to poke fun at modern culture in general. This movie is all-inclusive. Deadpool even insists that it's a family film, and it is about family, in a genuine and heartfelt way. Though if he wanted kids to see it, he should've rethought all those expletives and that all-out gory violence.

And thank your lucky stars (or maybe Domino?) for those fourth-wall breaks. From "Look guys, I'm breaking the fourth wall! Aren't I funny?" in the last movie, to actually, really breaking the fourth wall, and in clever and nuanced ways. It's so casual and underplayed it never jolts you out of the movie experience, but instead it's like the real-world is drawn into the film. And the film is funnier and more wide-open for it.

Obviously this movie knows how to have fun.

If anything holds Deadpool back, it's its R-rating. An R-rating is natural, but there's a sense of strict obligation here that could be done without. It did away with the superhero obligation that Disney/Marvel has created; each new superhero flick needing to build on top of the last one for bigger, better, fresher; more, more, more! It's gotten so bad that now, this normal superhero flick, that doesn't feel like it's holding back when it never destroys an entire city, is the one that's breaking the mold.

Even with its irreverence, and its carefree attitude, this film focuses small and intimate, letting us get to know and care for its characters. It delivers clear-cut battles with brutal glee, wildly entertaining choreography, and an extra-large side of comic violence. It takes time to set up jokes; it slows down for moments of real drama; and it comes out the other side with a strikingly positive message for a movie about anti-heroes.

It hits you right on the X.

I can only conclude that Deadpool must actually care about being a great, fun, entertaining film. And no matter where or how it might misstep, that is the greatest complement I can give any movie of its kind. It puts in the effort. The maximum effort.

Monday, May 14, 2018

All the Money in the World


This remarkably cold movie tells the true story of the kidnapping of the grandson of the richest man in the world circa 1973. J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer) is the grandfather who refuses to pay the ransom. The boy's mother Gail (Michelle Williams) spends her time pestering her father-in-law for the cash and working with his personal agent (Mark Wahlberg) who has instructions to find and rescue Paul III (Charlie Plummer) as inexpensively as possible.

Directed by Ridley Scott. And it feels it.

This whole film is a character study in coldness -- using a chilly aloof tone as if it were a medium, such as oils or charcoal. Most obviously, it is tinted literally in cold colors; dark, lifeless pale blues and sickly yellows. This bothered me slightly. When color grading is obvious to me it takes me out of the picture. The beginning was in black and white, and it was the only time the film looks truly beautiful. I wish it had stayed that way, but the otherworldly color grading was intentional, and knowing that helps a little.

Then, famously, Mr. Getty's steely and calculating actions. He claims to love his grandson, yet openly refuses to pay. "I have fourteen grandchildren," he says, "if I start paying ransoms, I'll have fourteen kidnapped grandchildren." And there's no denying the logic in his reasoning, no matter how repulsive and frigid it feels. But he seems to use this reasoning as an excuse, pinching pennies in spectacular fashion and hesitantly spending his billions on inanimate pieces of art which he talks to with tenderness unused toward the living.

He is affectionate toward Paul as a kid, which only makes his later carelessness worse.

The monologue in which he explains why he values beautiful things over people was most telling to me. Things don't change; people do. I found his character magnificently fascinating, and Christopher Plummer pulled off the part beautifully, with an underlying softness in his eye that hints at endless complexities within this enigmatic man. He did a similar job with a similar character in Nicholas Nickleby, but that didn't degrade the fascination or entertainment he provided at all. I'm glad he was the last-minute replacement, if only because he didn't require prosthetics, so his performance came through effortlessly, and with intricacy.

He was the one character you expect coldness from. It was unexpected in the character of Gail. It would've been endlessly annoying if she had been panicking throughout the film, but her focused calmness came across at times as just calculating as he father-in-law; intentionally, I'm sure. As the character who drives the story, it's interesting to see her contrasted with Getty as they both work essentially the same way to achieve their goal, only hers is a noble goal. But underneath she still has an anxiousness and desperation that occasionally reveals itself. Even in the end when she and Paul are reunited she still doesn't melt, but instead redirects her strength to support and assure him.

The kind of nice kidnapper was not a real person.

Paul spends the movie growing more and more passive, until you think he's adopted that Getty stony demeanor permanently. When he finally does break down it is the antithesis that concludes the cold pattern and the film. Strangely, the warmest relationship is between Paul and the kidnapper who's assigned to guard him (Romain Duris). From being friendly and trusting, to turning a blind eye when Paul tries to escape, to actively saving his life, he's the film's most personable character. Yet the film is sure to show him receiving and pocketing his cut of the ransom. No one here is cut and dry.

Though Christopher Plummer is the only actor here whose character is capable of reaching shock-and-awe levels, the rest of the cast puts every bit as much work in, and find their moments to impress. Even Mark Wahlberg who I thought for sure would take me out of the movie was natural in the seriousness and disappeared into his role. Williams commands every scene she's in, and Charlie Plummer is one of my new favorite things -- though I still haven't seen Lean on Pete, the movie that informed me of his existence in the first place. He's got talent that stands out, but perhaps more importantly, he has a naturally magnetic screen presence; something you can't learn.

Though sometimes the point seemed on-the-nose, scenes like these had easy depth and rhythm.

Usually I go into movies hoping that I'll be able to empathize with the characters; here, even regarding a kidnapped teen, inducing sympathy into the audience isn't the goal. These characters are made to be real and complex -- sometimes to the point of seemingly contradicting themselves -- and we are not invited to feel for them, but to observe them; as coldly and calculatingly as they observe the world. It's from this perspective that the film finds its significance. Liberties are taken with the truth of the real-life event to make a more cinematic and impactful ending, but understanding the mission of the film, that was a wise choice.

In short, perhaps this isn't best viewed as a true story. As Paul says to us via voice-over, it's like they're from another planet. Perhaps this story is best viewed as a glass exhibit of strange, cold-blooded caricatures; equipped with a moral to help us see that though we may lack all the money in the world, it was they who lacked in the riches this world has to offer.

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Upcoming Movie Roundup - May

Wow. It's May already! I got to three movies on my list last month. A Quiet Place was the best of them, an excellent genre film. (Review here!) I watched Marrowbone off Amazon, and it was... complicated. (Review here.) And then of course, there was Avengers: Infinity War. Le sigh. I was painfully accurate in my predictions about this movie in all ways except one (and even that one is potentially arguable). I'm still a Marvel fan which is half of why I still go to these movies, but I feel like they've left me behind. The movies are barely even movies anymore, and not meant for the likes of me. (Review here.)

I also finally saw The Death Cure (Yay!) and it was a little more disappointing than I was hoping (Boo.) but it was still a worthwhile watch. (Review here.) And I hadn't posted my Ready Player One review yet last time, so if you missed that, check it here!

I think permanently missed Thoroughbreds in theaters, but I'm still wondering about Lean on Pete -- did I miss it, or is it never coming to a theater in my area? Whatever, I'll be sure to get both of those asap. I feel like I'm missing all the hidden gems of this year, and that feeling has been amplified by the joyless dominating event that is Infinity War.

This month doesn't actually have much going for it, but here's what we've got!:

The Cleanse
May 4th (limited); R
This one looks so strange. I little cheaply made maybe, but practical effects, so making good use of what they have. It's a horror comedy, and it looks both weirdly terrifying and strangely amusing, so I have to say I'm interested enough to keep an eye on how it does critically.

May 11th (limited); R
They had me at Margo Robbie and Simon Pegg. And then I found out it's got a neon-noir style to it! I can't tell what the plot is from the trailer, but it sure does look good. Looks more than a little inappropriate for me too, but I have an app for that, so we'll see what happens.

The Seagull
May 11th (limited); PG-13
Based on a play I don't think I've ever heard of, but it's by Anton Chekhov, so I'd guess it's good. I like the period and the look, and the cast too, so I'll probably give it a go whenever it's becomes convenient from my living room. Anyone know the story?

Deadpool 2
May 18th; NR
This is an interesting situation. As you may know, I didn't like the first one at all, but I am a fan of the comic Deadpool, so I'm willing to give him as many chances as he wants to take. The first trailer gave me hope it might be an improvement, and the second trailer took all that hope away. Now this final trailer has restored hope again, and I'm not sure what to think. The trailer makes me laugh, and it appears to have a real plot this time. I won't speculate, but I am definitely interested to see and see how it goes. Domino is probably going to be awesome. And I spy with my little eye, someone who's name is Bill Skarsgård! No mpaa rating yet, but that one's not a hard guess. (On that note, language warning for this trailer.)

First Reformed
May 18th (limited); R
One of those trailers that looks all intriguing and artsy with a lot to say, but the only way to find out if you'll like it and what it has to say is to watch it. Ethan Hawke looks good. And Amanda Seyfried is in it, too.

Solo: A Star Wars Story
May 25th; PG-13
You know, I'd be 100% on board for this movie, hyped and actually excited -- if only his name wasn't Han Solo. Of course if he wasn't Han, then Emilia Clark would be the main character (that's the rule) and Donald Glover wouldn't get to be Lando, and then what would the point even be? This was such a bad idea. Poor Alden Ehrenreich. If he's a good Han he'll be underused what with all those supporting characters, and if he's bad -- he's bad. They just need to own it. Be like, "I'm Han Freakin' Solo. Deal with it." and let the haters hate. But the movie seems ashamed of him. Like they know this is a terrible idea. From the concept, to firing the directors, to the cast (except Glover and probably Paul Bettany) to the cliched "we're putting together a team" plot, all reeks of disaster. But visually, it looks great. Coloring, lighting, framing; it looks like it'll be visually pleasant. And as for the rest -- I'm not determined to hate it. I'm mostly just curious to see.