West Side Story (2021)

Spoilers.

Film adaptations of stage musicals always seem to be lesser. There's something about live performance that dazzles and sweeps you along in ways film simply cannot. But even in that light, Steven Spielberg's re-adaptation of West Side Story is still lesser, and can't manage to improve on the one put to screen 50 years ago.

Despite all that money. Money, it turns out, is cold and inanimate and cannot emote to entertain an audience.

It's worth noting that if you're a fan of West Side Story there no reason why you won't get enjoyment out of this one. I know when I love something, I can see any number of adaptations or versions and be happy even if they're mostly not the greatest thing ever, just because I love the story that's being told and love to see the different casts and approaches. I feel that way, in fact, about Romeo and Juliet, and from that perspective, I did have fun watching this version as it was the first time I saw West Side Story since reading Romeo and Juliet. I never realized before exactly how closely this story follows the Shakespeare. But I'm not particularly a fan of West Side Story in itself. Nothing against it, and I've never not enjoyed it, but I never felt any personal attachment. 

And that's why I needed this version to be actively good in order to impress me. Which is why I am far from impressed. Spielberg give it a good ol' Oscar-grab revamping, by spending lots of money and doing nothing creative. He casts stage veterans in bit parts (Brian D'Arcy James is there but doesn't sing???) and tones down the dancing so his Hollywood stars can keep up. Ariana DeBose as Anita was the only main casting that was actively good. She could dance, sing, and act with equal fervor, and stole the show as far as I'm concerned. Rachel Zegler had a nice voice and a good look for Maria, but her characterization felt too restrained to me. Chalk it up to inexperience behind a camera. I have no complaints about the rest—except one. 

Ho hum, here we go...

Ansel Elgort's Tony is every bit as bad as I feared it would be. And I don't dislike Elgort. He just needs the right role to work—and this isn't it. He doesn't have the look. He exudes dopiness rather than romance, and while that can be charming in the right setting (hello Baby Driver) it's a stretch here. I don't get why he was cast. His acting is nothing special either and while he can move well, Tony doesn't need to be a dancer. His singing voice sounded fine, except that there was never any power behind it. He doesn't belt or croon, he's just kind of... there. And the movie seems aware of all this, and attempts to prop him up by giving him more to do via songs that don't belong to him. Yes, they gave him Cool, the best piece in the show, and butchered it so he could have more screen time.

They also wrote in a change where Tony is freshly out of prison where he went after almost beating another kid to death in a rumble. I can see the good intention behind this addition, that it's trying to deepen Tony's character, but instead it undermines a few aspects of the story. It takes his agency, first, because he now no longer left the Jets by his own choice. Then it makes him seem too much a bad guy later—they have him fight Bernardo and beat him, but stop because he is afraid he may kill him... but then of course he does kill him a minute later and it comes across weirdly in this new light. Suddenly the focus is on Tony and his apparent personal disposition for violence rather than a general tragic look at how the gangs' cycle of violence and revenge destroys innocent lives. 

The dancing did have its moments, and I loved the costuming.

Spielberg's visual hand is where the movie finds most of its positives. It's nice to look at, expensive and often pleasantly gritty. Too much lens flare though. (J.J is supposed to copy you, Steve, not the other way round!) Some of it has that shiny CGI look to it—especially the atrocious Cool scene—but elsewhere there are real, and fun sets. I liked the balcony set up quite a lot. And there's one great shot when the gang's meet to rumble. The performance aspect of the dancing doesn't translate as well. The choreography is toned down and location hopping undercuts the songs' energy and momentum... which are usually dulled already due to the "La La Land Syndrome" where the singing is more "realistic" read: not powerful or dynamic at all. It's Broadway style music telling a Shakespearian tragedy; it needs to be larger than life, not toned down.

If there's one thing that sums up this movie's shortcoming, it's that. It sorely lacks dynamics. Both in the musical sense of fluctuating volume, and in the sense of the energy, tension, and passion that a well-assembled and performed piece can bestow on an audience. West Side Story demands dynamic storytelling, but Spielberg sacrificed the energy that a musical can bring through song and dance—cut it up and whittled it down—for the sake of realism. But so what if it's more historically accurate, if it can't make you feel? 

As I sat watching I kept thinking about the high school stage production I saw, and how that show made me feel more than this hundred-million-dollar project. Granted it was a very good high school production, but that should be a low bar for one of the most celebrated film directors ever. Instead, he cranked out yet another expensive, nice-looking, unnecessary bore, and either forgot, or didn't bother to infuse it with passion or life.

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.

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.




Terminal
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.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - July

Last month was theater-free for me. Warcraft tempted me a few times, as did May's X-Men: Apocalypse, and I even made an agreement with my brothers that if Independence Day: Resurgence got good enough reviews we'd go see all three -- but it didn't, and we didn't see the other two either. However, I did finally see one March movie that I would have gone to the theater for if it had actually played in my theater -- Midnight Special! I took a small risk and bought it, pretty confident that I'd like it and it paid off spectacularly! Not only did I love the film more than enough to want to watch it multiple times, it was also worth it for some neat and informing special features. A review will be incoming soon, but I'll go ahead and say that I strongly recommend it.

How was your month of June? And how is your July looking? Happy Summer!


The Legend of Tarzan
Jul 1st; PG-13
I'm pretty much only mentioning this one because I thought it looked interesting before any reviews came out.  Now, of course, it seems obvious that it would be no good -- now that I've actually sat down and watched the trailer. I didn't expect it'd be great, but I probably should have seen a low RT score like this coming. The adventure appeal of it distracted me a little. And someday, if ever I can get it for free and am feeling resilient to disappointment, I probably won't be able to help myself from watching it for that same reason.




The BFG
Jul 1st; PG
The latest from Steven Spielberg is a kiddie movie based on a book. Giants and magic and sweeping music is involved. I like Spielberg (who doesn't?) and the cast has Mark Rylance and Jemaine Clement who are great (but they're both playing animated giants so you can't actually see them, though the BFG does look quite a lot like Rylance (I actually recognized his face before I did his voice)) and it looks like a good kid's adventure movie, but maybe not quite to the point where it'd be a great movie for adults too. Especially for people like me who don't have a sentimental attachment. Still, the director and cast practically guarantees that I'll wind up seeing it someday. And I wouldn't be surprised if I enjoyed it.




Ghostbusters
Jul 15th; PG-13
Da-da da-da. Dada da-da da-da. Okay, no. I debated even mentioning this one, but decided to so that I could voice my opinion of how much I wish this movie didn't even exist. Based on the epic number of dislikes on the trailer, most people share my opinion, but I wanted to make my view clear anyway. Set out to attempt to destroy the classic by association, and so steeped in extreme feminism that all criticism of it has been (and probably will continue to be) labeled sexist, this is a film that I am happy to announce I will completely avoid for all eternity. The trailer is painfully unfunny, and the idea is completely pointless. Who you gonna call? The real, ORIGINAL Ghostbusters.




Cafe Society
Jul 15th; PG-13
Woody Allen's latest venture is set in the 30's, and focuses on the glamorous life of society people in Hollywood and New York through the eyes of Jesse Eisenberg. Also starring Kristen Stewart, Blake Lively, Steve Carell, and Corey Stoll. This one seems slightly similar to Midnight in Paris which is my favorite of Allen's films. It look like it has lots of vintage style and classic Allen-esque quirky conversations. Early reviews aren't as promising as my previously mentioned favorite's, but I think it'll turn out to be worth a look.




Equals
Jul 15th; PG-13
Another Kristen Stewart movie. Sometimes I surprise myself by watching her movies, but then I remember that I've never actually disliked her in anything -- and she's slowly wearing off the stain of Twilight... Anyway in this one Nicholas Hoult co-stars and it's a sci-fi, so it certainly has my attention. It does look very moody though, and that may very well be a downfall. But I'm pretty sure I'm gonna have to find out for myself.




Star Trek Beyond
Jul 22nd; Not rated yet
This is hands-down the most exciting release of the month, yet it has a a very sad side to it, because of the untimely and tragic death of Anton Yelchin who plays the fan-favorite Chekov. He will be sorely missed in the years to come. Beyond doesn't have the guaranteed success that Into Darkness seemed to either because of the new director coming on board. However, I think, and have thought from the first that this installment looks every bit as good as the last one. I like the episodic, smaller-scale nature it seems to be bringing, and am very excited to see how Simon Pegg's script turned out. A definite must-see!




Jason Bourne
Jul 29th; PG-13
Bourne is back and bigger than ever. Actually, I'm not sure "bigger than ever" is a good thing; at some point things are going to go over the top, and the grounded feel of the previous Matt Damon Bourne's was a huge part of the appeal. However, I doubt it'll matter much -- this film looks solid. With Damon and Greengrass back, how could it not? Julia Stiles is back too, and it's also got Tommy Lee Jones, and Alicia Vikander, which means promises of good things. This may very well be a must-see as well!

Upcoming Movie Roundup - September

August releases for me sadly saw no movies worth the theater trip after the embarrassingly giant flop of Fantastic Four (or Fant4stic) that completely ruined my interest in seeing it, and The Man From U.N.C.L.E. being pretty tempting, (I'll certainly see it on DVD!) but not quite as tempting as a second viewing of Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation (review), which is the best movie of the year (so far) and %100 the best movie of the summer!

September has a nice little bit of varying interest, but for me, if the one movie I'm really excited for turns out right, it'll easily overshadow the others.

Have you seen Rogue Nation yet? Cause you need to. And which movies of September have your interest?


Before We Go
Sept. 4th (limited); PG-13
Two strangers meet and fall in love while staying up all night and wandering around New York City in this romantic dramady directed by and starring Chris Evans with Alice Eve. This movie seems like it would be a no-brainer for any girl having a hard time waiting for Captain America: Civil War to come around. I fall into that category, by the way. I hesitate to be too interested in this though, because of the few but unanimously negative reviews currently up on RT. Rom-coms very rarely get great scores, but I worry that this one might be worse than normal. All the same, I'll be keeping an eye on it, and will very likely be watching it as a rental someday. -- After writing that, I actually found this movie on Demand for rental and watched it. I'll review it later, but for now lets just say that when more reviews come in, a significant number should be significantly more positive.




Black Mass
Sept. 18th; R
This one's more a case of me really liking the cast than the idea of the movie itself. We have Johnny Depp going unrecognizable again with the prosthetics, creepy blue eyes and the terrible comb-back as the real-life super criminal Whitey Bulger. Bendect Cumberbatch plays his brother who was a senator, and Joel Edgerton is the FBI agent that gets in way too deep with him. There's also Corey Stoll, Kevin Bacon, Peter Sarsgaard, and Adam Scott. But if it weren't for the cast I would have no interest at all in this real-life crime story, even if it does turn out to be as well-made as it wants us to believe it will be.




Sicario
Sept. 18th (limited); R
This one is very similar to the one above. The cast list is smaller -- Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro -- but very interesting, and the plot seems only to be the carrier of the performances. Though this one looks heavier on the action, and isn't based on a true story. Emily Blunt is the main source of interest, and as awesome as she is, it may not be enough to put this one up on my list.




Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
Sept. 18th; PG-13
This is my must-see of the month. What kind of reviews it gets doesn't really factor in here, because the first Maze Runner movie was great, but got middling reviews. So I don't trust critics to not give this movie bad score just because they feel that the movie is unnecessary -- being a dystopian movie that isn't a Hunger Games movie. I like these stories a lot, and as far as I can tell, this film looks to be even better than the first film, and even better than it's source book. Everyone's here -- Dylan O'Brien, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki Hong Lee, Kaya Scodelario, and even some guys who had bit-parts in the last film. Then there's the addition of a few important girls, and Jacob Lofland (of Mud) as the new guy. It looks like there will be some changes from the book, mainly ones that increase action level without diverting from the main plot line -- which would be ideal, and therefore is what I'm expecting. It's an exciting month for the Maze Runner fans!




The Intern
Sept. 25th; PG-13
This one just oozes cuteness. An old, retired man gets a job as an intern at a young and hip company, and of course amusing situations and witty banter follows. Robert De Nero stars with Anne Hathaway, and a few familiar names supporting. This has the feel of a good movie that will easily charm and amuse, and hopefully it lives up to that impression!

Ant-Man

This review is Spoiler-free.

Don't worry; I'll refrain from the size jokes.

Ant-Man is the newest Marvel flick, and it's been a while since we've seen a solo introductory Marvel film. The solo film's style should reflect accurately the character of the hero it features, and it's an important task to get right as it sets the tone for that character for the rest of his movie career. In that, and in many, many other things, Ant-Man knocks it out of the park.

Standing in the tub trying to get the full view in the bathroom mirror. Things we can all relate to.

Scott Lang is a burglar. He very strictly only does non-violent crimes of sneaky thieving and even takes cues from Robin Hood. But he still gets caught. We pick up as he's just finishing his three-year stint in prison, and he's determined to go straight -- for his daughter. That doesn't work so well though, and eventually he decides to take just one last job -- for his daughter. But this job of burgling one Dr. Hank Pym's house gets him way more than he ever asked for, and exactly what he needs; a chance to become the good guy, save the world, and be a good dad -- for his daughter.

"Save the world" sounds exactly like what you'd expect from a Marvel flick, and it's true that the fate of the world hangs in the balance in this plot, but, it hangs in the background. There's no immediate danger of aliens or robots actively destroying the world. I say this not because it features a guy who shrinks, but because it's true; Ant-Man is just plain on a smaller scale than any Marvel film so far. And I love it. 

A smaller scale never means there's any less heart.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a superhero spy movie; Guardians of the Galaxy was a superhero space movie; Ant-Man is a fantastic superhero heist movie. And heist movies, by definition, do not make a lot of noise. It was wonderfully refreshing to not see massive destruction and hordes of casualties in this one; but at the same time, when, say, a suitcase, or a miniature city gets completely obliterated, it gives the impression of the superhero destruction and delivers on all the visual thrills that entails -- just without all those bothersome consequences.

Paul Rudd at the lead of this film is just as cool and charming as you would expect out of the newest Marvel movie superhero, but his Scott Lang has a lot more to him that I did not expect; being a new and determined convert to the ranks of "family man" for one. For Scott it's more about his daughter than anything else, and that's a particularly sweet thing to see in a movie like this. He also gives the impression of just being a regular guy better than any of his super predecessors. His hard work and determination makes him worthy of his superhero status, and his charm and humor makes him a lovable lead for the film.

He was also automatically cool, as a burglar... but he probably would have been cool anyway.

Michael Douglas is the resident movie veteran, so of course he is great. Dr. Pym is the creator of the Ant-Man suit, and is Scott's mentor and trainer, but he has plenty of his own character development to worry about, and some of may be a bit contrived, but he handles it all like the pro he is. Evangeline Lily is Pym's daughter; source of much snark and cynicism, and the general greatness we've come to expect out of her. She is fun and involving and lovely, and a little bit deadly. The villain is Corey Stoll, and he does a fantastic job with what he has, but doesn't get to go quite as crazy as he is capable of and I was hoping for. Still he was a classically sinister kind of villain which was great, and was very well-dressed.

When you look this good, you really should rule the world.

And Judy Greer was there, as Scott's ex-wife and mother of his daughter, and I liked her so much I felt kind of sad that there didn't seem to be any chance of their getting back together. Bobby Cannavale was her fiancé and a cop, so of course there's clashing between him and Scott which helped makes things more personal and closer to home. Hayley Atwell and John Slattery also make appearances as their Peggy Carter and Howard Stark. Plus there's one very fun surprise appearance that I won't ruin.

Evangeline, hard to recognize under that hair.

Scott's team of fellow burglars is Luis (Michael Peña) Kurt (David Dastmalchian) and Dave (T.I.) Used mostly for comic relief, they were all funny, and helpful to the plot to boot, but Michael Peña stands out for miles and miles with his scene-stealing and hilarious character. At least a little bit of the credit for his hilarity though, has to go to the writers for writing that one awesome gag and knowing who to give it to for the best effect. There were several writers -- Joe Cornish, Adam McKay, the great Edgar Wright and even Paul Rudd himself -- so I don't know who gets credit for that bit, but I get the feeling it goes to Wright. The director Peyton Reed also certainly deserves props here too.

Three funny dudes.

I knew I'd love this movie, and I was right, but what I couldn't predict was why, and how differently I love it from the way I love other Marvel flicks. This movie reminded me of what I loved about movies as a kid, and made me feel like I was that little kid again; being thrilled by the sheer inventiveness and involved in the classic, old-fashioned-type plot events. I was even slightly more shocked at the little language and slightly disturbing violence than I normally would have been. Things that I would normally find too silly I suddenly found easy to forgive as well, and even sometimes quite easy to accept and enjoy, just because the movie itself embraced and wasn't ashamed of the silliness. I feel sentimental about this movie, like it's a childhood favorite, and I only saw it yesterday.

One cool thing I didn't expect was how much the ants were used. They were totally helpful and unique, and yes, pretty darned cute too.

This film is one of the more family-friendly, and definitely the most family-oriented Marvel films to date, but don't think that means it leaves our more refined adult side bored and wanting. It easily holds its own against the plethora of more obviously enticing and effortlessly marketable superhero flicks already in existence -- with its tongue in its cheek, its head held high, and its sights focused on its own sky-high goals. Goals that are reached with heart and humor and a determined effort. Ant-Man is a fun and fantastic caper that caters to the child in all of us. And let's be honest; if we're watching a superhero movie, we already have a child inside, just waiting to be catered to.

Non-Stop

This review is more spoiler-free than this movie's trailer.

In this exciting action thriller, Liam Neeson is a good, well-meaning man with deadly skills who was dealt a bad hand by life, and took it hard (with lots of drinks and reclusive-ness) and suddenly finds himself pitted against an anonymous villain with a terrible evil intent. People's lives are in danger, and Liam Neeson is their only hope.

Not specific enough for you? Well, this is the one on an airplane.

Oh, right. The one on the airplane. Gotcha.

Bill Marks is an ex-cop, turned Air Marshall who's afraid of flying, and likes to cover the smoke detector in the airplane's bathroom with tape so he can drink and smoke his misery away in peace. But on this flight, peace is the last thing he's gonna get -- he instead gets a new texting buddy who tells him that in twenty minutes he's going to kill someone on the plane unless he gets $150 mil. And twenty minutes later Marks knows that he's not kidding around.

It's a who-done-it in the sky; "Murder on the Airway Express" and wouldn't you know it, I'm currently into Agatha Christie, reading and watch Hercule Poirot mysteries whenever I have the spare time. So Marks may have a leg up on the world's most famous detective when it comes to beating the bad guy into a pulp, but first he has to find out who it is, and that's when I wished Poirot was on board so he could point out the right guy and let the pummeling start. Instead they have Liam running around accusing random people based on the most rudimentary evidence, and then believes or doesn't believe their defense based on even less evidence. We don't get any clues to base our guesses on either, except at least we're not blind to the clichés of the genre, and they're clues themselves -- my dad had called the bad guy even before the texts started coming in. Then he left.

Careful! She could be the bad guy!

When there was some pummeling going on, that was when the movie was at its best. Obviously -- this in a Liam Neeson thriller after all -- and the veteran actor's easy star-power is what held this movie together. He didn't even really seem to be trying, but his just being there was all it needed.

In the cast there was also President Coin herself, Julianne Moore, who might be the bad guy, or might be the spunky love interest; and Michelle Dockery, who might be the bad guy, or might just be a nice, kind flight attendant; and Corey Stoll (who I finally actually recognized in something besides his scene-stealing Midnight in Paris turn as Hemingway) who might be the bad guy, or, might be a trouble-causing jerk; and others, of course, who might be the villain or might be just who they seem to be. All of them are characters even more one-dimensional than Neeson's. At least it maintains the balance that way -- nothing says "this is a bad movie" better than side characters overshadowing the lead when the lead is the film's only selling point.

Don't trust her! She could be the bad guy!

Just to recap: so far, I've been laughing at the plot's attempts at a compelling mystery, red herrings and rabbit trails, but I'm still enjoying myself -- Neeson being his usual marketable self, and the solid, clichéd beginning practically guarantees a solid, clichéd ending.

And then, and then, things start happening. Annoying things. The laws of physics get sucked out an open airplane window. Characters start flip-flopping their opinions around at the plot's convenience. Everyone's heads get super dense as the plot stalls for time (gotta get over the hour and a half mark!). And the cherry on top; Politics comes into play, and tries to pose difficult moral questions to confuse and distract us. Plus the special effects were cheap, and that's just... cheap.

Also they totally steal the "texts show up on the screen for easy viewing by the audience" trick from Sherlock. I should get over that one though -- it's a useful trick.

But the film ended on a positive note for me, so I guess I will too.

*Tries very hard to think of a play on words involving "positive" and "note."*

Okay fine, I'll be legit about it.

The obligatory "awesome" moment of the climax was laughable, but it also redeemed the film; setting it back on the path of the cheesy and the hammy (and the not-annoying) for the duration of the flight. In the end, there wasn't much to this movie that we haven't seen before -- even performed by the exact same leading man, but it left me with a smile on my face. And maybe that smile was there because I managed to enjoy the movie overall, in spite of its clichéd ridiculousness, or maybe it was because of one little detail that may or may not be considered a spoiler.

One thing's for sure:

I'm positive that this film didn't have any notes at all -- it was texts!

Nailed it. 

Midnight in Paris

 To set mood: Push play, and start reading.

Gil is a self-proclaimed Hollywood hack who never took his chances with anything. He writes movie scripts and wishes he'd tried novels first. He lives in California and wishes he'd given Paris a shot. He also wishes he lived during "the Golden Age" -- the 20's, but that's not his fault. He's engaged to Inez, who is beautiful, and can be charming, but never seems to be while around him. Maybe she's just annoyed with him currently; they're in Paris for her dad's business, and he's talking about staying permanently; he's trying his hand at a novel, faltering, and stubbornly refuses help or advice, and he keeps mentioning how amazing Paris must have been in the 20's... in the rain. What's up with that?

"What's wonderful about getting wet?"

Gil is certainly a romantic. Longing for a time when he considered everything to be better -- and who could argue with the 20's in rainy Paris? Paris is still beautiful in the 21st century of course, so when faced with the decision of wandering the streets by himself at night, or spending another couple hours tagging along with Inez, and her friends Paul and Carol who they met by chance earlier, the answer is easy, and the answer is "alone."

A little while later, he's lost and sitting on some steps somewhere, watching the city, listening to the clock strike midnight. A vintage car pulls up. Heavily accented people call him to hop in, then he's at a party. The guy playing Cole Porter at the piano actually looks like Cole Porter. That's not possible. A feisty American lady introduces herself as Zelda, and then calls over her husband, Scott. Fitzgerald. Gotta be a coincidence.

The Fitzgeralds!

No, Gil Pender has somehow time-traveled, and that was just the beginning of his experience in that allegedly perfect time that is 1920's Paris. He muddles through the day with Inez and her increasingly annoying friends in 2011, then spends his nights living it up in the 20's with the likes of Hemingway, Picasso, and a breathtaking French girl, Adriana.

Adriana and Gil at a surrealist's wedding. Hence the taxidermy birds. ...That makes sense, right?

This little Woody Allen film starts out with various lovely, saturated shots of Paris slowly progressing day to night as a soprano sax belts out a jazzy tune. An easy, effortless artistic feel flows from there through the rest of the movie. None of the shots look really "composed," but if you pay attention, you begin to appreciate the scenes composed of a single shot, drawn out over several minutes as characters walk about and interact with each other realistically; competing to get a word in, and having to make an effort to express themselves intelligently.

And who exactly is in this movie? Everyone. Okay, maybe not, but it certainly does seem like it at times. Owen Wilson is our protagonist Gil, and is his usual charming, goofy, funny self. Rachel McAdams is Inez, and is great at being, well, dis-likable (to put it nicely), but you can see her appeal as well. Michael Sheen is Inez's "pedantic" friend Paul, perfectly described with one word. Then there's the crazy coroner Woody from Psych, Kurt Fuller, being normal as Inez's dad, and the assassin girl from MI4, Lea Seydoux, playing a local girl.

Paul, Carol, Inez and Gil touring Paris. Paul serves as tour guide, and says "if I'm not mistaken" a lot.

In the 20's side, the ever-lovely Marion Cotillard is the equally lovely and sweet Adriana. When Gil says she has "one of the most interesting faces ever" I couldn't agree more. Adrien Brody gets a single, memorable scene as Salvador Dali. Kathy Bates plays Gertrude Stein. Corey Stoll is Ernest Hemingway, and this movie's scene-stealer, which is really saying something when there's also Tom Hiddleston there, playing F. Scott Fitzgerald with a great "20's American" accent, and his classic, but (as of then) not-quite-yet discovered charm.

Gil, Ernest Hemingway, and Gertrude Stein examine Picasso's latest painting.

I must briefly mention a kind of technical aspect here. The film is rated PG-13 for "some sexual references and smoking." As to the smoking, I just wonder why they don't mention all the drinking as well, but the sexual references are scattered around the film, and are not especially crude like some PG-13's can easily be, but are inappropriate enough to warrant a warning.

Loose morals abound just as you'd expect from the 20's and 2000's, but the moral of the film goes in a much different direction.

First we are drawn in with simple, delightful appeal, to fall in love with a place we've perhaps never been to, and feel nostalgia for a time we never experienced. It's easier than it seems; I don't get all the references to the time, and I don't know all the famous people of the 20's introduced or mentioned, but when nostalgia is this contagious, it doesn't make a difference. I think Woody Allen could make me nostalgic for last week if he presented it like this.

Because I really, really like this still.

Midnight in Paris is pleasingly sentimental and nostalgic. But instead of ending there and letting us wallow in our new-found disappointment of having to live in the here and now, it says it doesn't matter; everyone wishes their lot was different. Paris is still here, so if you want to live there, go. If you want to write a novel, take the risk and try it. Walk in the rain if you can appreciate it. It encourages us to love the past if we want, but to live in the present.

And then, when paired with the easy artistic delivery and cute wry humor, it becomes much, much more than a typical comedy. Instead of cheap jokes and meaningless romance, you actually get to think while watching. And sure it doesn't go as deep as some serious thinking movies, but that's not bad -- it simply doesn't presume to be anything it's not, and doesn't take itself too seriously. Because what it is, is plenty good; lighthearted, fun, genuinely charming... like a walk through Paris in the rain.

-- 4.5/5 stars

My sixth review for this!

Bonus -- because I can't resist. Tom Hiddleston is being interviewed for The Avengers and Midnight in Paris, and does the most perfect Owen Wilson impression. (Start at 3:55 to avoid The Avengers part, which is mostly the smitten host flirting awkwardly anyway.)