First Man

Spoiler-free!

With his third film, the undeniably talented filmmaker Damien Chazelle tackles the story of the first man to walk on the moon, and in the effort to bring his story down to earth, turns him and the NASA Apollo team -- the biggest, baddest, most brilliant rock stars of geekdom -- into "a bunch of boys making models out of balsa wood."

Oh dear. Here we go... It's like half the movie wanted to be in awe of them, and the other half wanted to tear them down and "show them for what they really were." The direction and the writing felt at odds.

My biggest issue is with the treatment of Neil himself. I know next to nothing about him, so I'll try not to speculate too far, but it seems to be that Chazelle's (but perhaps more the writer, Josh Singer's) intention was to humanize his story. To that end the film begins with the death of his young daughter, and Neil spends the next eight years of his life in what is presented as a constant state of depression. His goal of reaching the moon seems dangerously obsessive, yet oddly joyless, and his ultimate success more the result of mere luck than the kind of hard work, training, and discipline it certainly took in reality.

Part of this has to be attributed to Ryan Gosling's deadpan performance, which I'm sure was intended, but ultimately comes across as cold. There are subtleties there, but mostly I found that the filming style created performance out of little substance. Those eye close ups -- they convey an idea of what lies underneath an emotionless stare. However, the character is written to have so much instability that I would worry about NASA's vetting process if I were convinced his characterization were accurate. It's unfathomable to me that having already lost a child, and fully prepared to risk his life, he wouldn't value the chance to say goodbye to his children, no matter how confident he may be of his return.

This is going to sound meaner than I mean it to mean, but I felt equal connection to him when he was standing with his sun-shield up as I did when he was actively emoting. i.e., the film conveyed emotion FOR him, not THROUGH him.

It smacks of sensationalism -- and why not? There's a reason this story hasn't been told before. As magnificent and history-making an event it was, it was simply too by-the-numbers successful endeavor to make a compelling film. So an effort is made to make it seem as dangerous and duct-taped together as possible; even to the point of presenting factual errors and stretching the truth for drama. For his part, Chazelle literally shakes the audience, and goes deep into the visceral experience. Shot on film, grainy, handheld camerawork, high-contrast and glaring lighting; it's nothing if not dramatic. And to its credit this style makes the open and still photography of the moon's surface all the more striking later.

That sequence was by far the most grabbing of the film -- and it was all due to the contrast of filming style. Yet Neil's character has no such moment of contrast. With juxtaposition of highs, his lows may have been more deeply empathized with, yet he's consistently despondent and frustratingly aloof, to the point of returning to the very thing this film ran from: that the man was unrelatable; but it a way that paints him badly -- as immature and anti-social -- instead of the positive if unattainable status he's more deserving of, as an absolute legend of history.

Claire Foy is great because Claire Foy is always great. There has never been a time when she has been less great than she was at every moment in this movie. However, I didn't care for the role her character took in the story.

I know there has to be some who would disagree with me and identified with this character. It is a character piece, and is put on with subtlety and rawness classic to indie sensibilities. It lost me as a character study, however, and the loss was felt because there was no backup to keep me on the hook. As a science-fact space-exploration film, it hardly even tries. I had no expectation to start, but found myself again and again wishing for the audience-friendly science explanations and easy structure of Ron Howard's Apollo 13. That film is the perfect storm of understandable science, balanced characters full of emotional range, and true-story credibility.

It seems almost unfair to compare the two, but therein is exactly my point. First Man intentionally sets aside in-depth explanation of technical aspects to drill deep into the character of one man; and with that singular goal, still fails to capture my affection for that one character the same way Apollo 13 did for at least four characters, while spending half it time as an educational video about how to make a CO² filter out of duct tape and a sock. Still, Chazelle didn't set out to make Apollo 13, but his own creation -- and it is beautiful in his way. There were moments worth the frustrations -- mostly in the visuals which were remarkably great. Despite its failure to capture me, I'll certainly retain a level of respect for the work as a whole.

It's beautiful, and there's value and appeal to that. But it's the kind of value that will diminish and be replaced in time. I far prefer Chazelle's work when he writes for himself. Then the heart matches his style and tone.

First Man is undeniably a visceral, and carefully and artfully crafted film. From a fictional perspective it's handled well, feeling both massively epic and massively intimate. From a real-life perspective the efforts and heroism of its characters seems intentionally minimized. And from a personal perspective, that minimization edges on disrespect, the intimacy lacks attraction, and the epic scope conveys little more than a cool, clouded glance into one of the most impressive and awesome feats of mankind.

Justice League

Spoilers!

It's sad that this movie feels like a small fry in comparison to Batman v Superman. It's a bit anti-climactic after most of the Justice League's members have already teamed up and fought something so powerful that it managed to kill Superman. How do you top that?

Answer: You don't. Not like this you don't. And topping BvS isn't even a high goal.

Well, you have to bring Supes (Henry Cavill) back to life. But casually sideline him because he's still OP. And you gotta find another super-powerful villain to challenge them. Then threaten the end of the world, cause that always ups the stakes. So CGI villain Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds) arrives, cued by the death of Superman, to destroy and conquer the Earth. Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), aware of the coming invasion, collect The Flash (Ezra Miller) Aquaman (Jason Momoa) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) to fight him. The characters aren't bad, and the plot is cliched but not bad, but it's put together as if by random; everyone going through the motions; no soul, no power, no passion. Just... nothing.

Them deciding to use the weird liquid in the Kryptonian ship to bring Superman back to life, like Luthor did to create Doomsday, is the most unexpected and therefore most interesting part of the movie. Which is unusual because it happens in the middle of the movie, where most superhero flicks flounder before getting to the end battle. I honestly expected Superman to show up unprompted and save the day, but they had to decide to restore him, and it took up a good portion of the movie to make happen. Still he's in it very little, and spends too much time with Lois (Amy Adams) and yes, his upper lip (where a mustache has been CG-ed out) is distracting.

"So what happened in Justice League, Diana?" "Oh, nothing very interesting."

Superman is likeable once he gets over being woken from his nap, and even gets cheesy a few times. Is this good or bad? Well... yes. Wonder Woman doesn't have her character ruined or anything, but she's nowhere near the height she reached in her solo film. Batman is just Batman. There's nothing particularly good about him, or anything particularly bad. He's just there. Cyborg ended up being the only one to impress and be better than expected; he's equally as well-done as everyone else. Aquaman was somehow both worse and better than I expected. My highest hopes were that Flash would be my favorite, but he was exclusively used for forced comic relief that only tempted me to laugh once. His potential remains, so we'll see about that solo film.

From scene to scene Lois will change from wig to no wig. It's noticeable, and cheap, and honestly I wish she hadn't been in the movie at all. This plus Superman's erased mustache, plus Steppenwolf's appearance as some villain on loan from a video game, are the outward evidence of this film's fundamental problem: Movies this massive, this expensive, and this hyped, should not be anywhere near this small and cheap. I haven't been this underwhelmed since X-Men: Apocalypse promised the apocalypse and delivered nothing but Oscar Isaac disguised in blue silicone. To make this movie was the entire reason the DCEU existed! But now it feels like a casual afterthought to BvS and Wonder Woman.

The most exciting thing about it is the promises of more to come -- but at what point are we going to stop believing them, if more exciting promises is all they ever deliver?

This film spends $300,000,000 delivering nothing, and has nothing to stand on but flat jokes, horrendous CGI, characters that have been better elsewhere, and lackluster stakes. The best I can say for it is that it didn't make me angry. BvS did, but now I'm wondering which is worse. At least BvS tried to do something and made me feel something -- even a bad something. With this, I've never been more disengaged watching a movie in the theater. Justice League, DCEU's Big Event Movie, that's been building up for five years, just did the worst thing it could do, and made a safe landing. We were promised an Earth-shattering kaboom, and all we got was a soft, apologetic thump.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day

Some Spoilers.

Guinevere Pettigrew is having a hard time as a governess in late 1930's London. Maybe it's her unappealing appearance, maybe it's her mildly abrasive and awkward personality, but no one will keep her on, and nothing is going right for her. So when she steals a clients address and accidentally becomes the social secretary of a vibrant, up-and-coming American actress, she lets this slight increase in fortune propel her through an increasingly eventful and increasingly crazy day.

Albeit slightly unwillingly at first.

Based on the 1938 novel by Winifred Watson, this film plays out like a play, with its heart and wit coming from interaction and dialogue. The plot is driven by character, and all the characters have that larger-than-life vitality to them that comes so often from the stage. The excellent Frances McDormand leads the talented cast, and doesn't let anyone overshadow her, though Miss Pettigrew is that meek and invisible type of character, and is easily overshadowed within the story. I love her expressions; subtle, but extremely expressive, so we always knows what's going on in her mind, and the energy she exudes -- even as a tired and worn out character -- keeps everything effortlessly fresh and bright.

Amy Adams as Delysia, is hilarious, playing dumb, which she rarely does now, but is exceptionally good at. But Delysia is a particularly good role for her, because as the second main character, she also gets to go deep within that dumbness. Delysia is a world-wise girl, and that perceptiveness taught her to model herself as a classic empty beauty. Amy hits that balance in just the right spot. Her frienemy Edythe is played by Shirley Henderson, who if you don't recognize the name, you almost certain will the face. She makes an excellent villainess, with the striking poise of high fashion and the casual sadness of a person so steeped in their villainy that they've given up on happiness altogether, and now only live to make others just as miserable as they are.

So makeover stories aren't strictly high school after all...

Delysia, as an attractive and loose young lady, has three suitors to choose from. The first is Mark Strong as Nick. Nick owns the nightclub that she sings at and the apartment she lives in. He's rich, but clearly a villain. Mark Strong is of course, awesome, since he's always awesome, and without much time, makes Nick the exact stereotype you'd expect him to be. The second suitor is Phil played by Tom Payne. A smashing young man who talks like the perfect 1930's British airhead. He reminds me so much of  Edmund Sparkler of Little Dorrit. His father runs the theatre that Delysia is vying for a part at. He's likable, for the most part, but certainly not the character to root for.

That honor belongs to the third man, Michael, played by Lee Pace. (Of course.) Michael is the pianist who accompanies Delysia at Nick's nightclub; practically penniless, but actually loves her enough to put up with all her wishy-washy ways. None of the male characters get a chance to rise above classic stereotypes, so Michael is the upright guy who watches the lady with melancholy and longing until his passion and devotion wins the day. And if there's no deeper twist to the character, it's at least a case of perfect casting, because no one does melancholy and passionate romance like Lee Pace. His charm and sad expressions give the character everything he needs.

Who could resist?

Anyway, the men are really all secondary. This story is about the two ladies, and the story could hardly be about Miss Pettigrew if while Delysia is deciding between three men she doesn't have any! The man whose eye she catches is Joe, played by Ciarán Hinds. The rich man who rules the fashion world, but hasn't been swallowed alive by it yet, and is kind and genuine and gentlemanly. He's engaged to Edythe for some strange reason, and that creates some nice drama for Miss Pettigrew. It doesn't take much to figure out where everything ends here, but the fun really is in the getting there. With all the charming characters, and an equally charming script, it would be a bigger feat if the film doesn't charm you, rather than does. The late thirties fashion is lovely and the air of the era is present and practically overflowing off the screen.

Charming and light romance in its natural habitat.

If I wanted to nitpick, I'd say that nothing this story does is particularly bold or extreme, and if you don't have a reason to stay you may find yourself growing bored. The actors, their characters, and the innate charm the flows through everything are the best reasons to stay, but artistically, from a film-making perspective, there's not much that stands out. However since this is the type of story that is meant to entertain, and that it does absolutely, those out to be entertained and enjoy themselves certainly should be by Miss Pettigrew's eventful, life changing day of living.