Sunday, October 25, 2020

Tarantino for Hillbillies: A Review of The Devil All the Time

 directed by Antonio Campos

written by Antonio and Paulo Campos 

based on the book by Donald Ray Pollock


Last night, having re-watched the live-action/animation hybrid Saving Sally (a wonderful, if conspicuously flawed movie) I decided to try watching my first Netflix original film since Enola Holmes, and settled on The Devil All the Time, a film I had actually started watching before I had even watched the Sherlock Holmes fanfic, but which I had not finished on the belief that it was a horror movie (owing to the fact that it starred Bill Skarsgard, also known as Pennywise the Clown, and featured an extremely bloody scene early in the film), and therefore something I would not want to watch. Well, after my daughter told me that it was a drama (albeit an extremely violent one)  I decided to check it out, having had my fill of binge watching cartoons for several weeks in a row.


And boy, it could not have been more different.


When Willard Russell, a PTSD afflicted veteran of World War II (Bill Skarskard) comes home, having been deeply-scarred by the war and the disturbing sight of a mangled, skinned but still alive U.S. marine crucified by the Japanese, he settles down in Knockemstiff, Ohio with a charming waitress named Charlotte (Haley Benett) and they have a son, Arvin (Michael Banks Repeta).  Willard, however, is never quite the same. Having abandoned conventional religion, he sets up a makeshift altar in the woods near his home, where he takes his son to pray. His prayers become more frantic when Charlotte falls terminally ill, and when Willard does the unthinkable, Arvin is shipped off to live in Cold Creek, West Virginia with his grandmother Emma (Kristin Griffith) and his uncle Earskell (David Atkinson).  As it happens, Emm and Earskell have also adopted an oprhaned young girl, Leonora, whose mother Helen (Mia Wasikowska) has befallen tragedy at the hands of her preacher husband Roy (Harry Melling), who, himself later fell victim to roving serial killers Carl (Jason Clarke) and Sandy (Riley Keogh), who operate with impunity because Sandy's brother is the corrupt Sheriff of Meade, Ohio, Lee (Sebastian Stan).  

Years later Arvin has grown up to be a troubled teen (Tom Holland) albeit one devoted to his unconventional family consisting of his grandmother, his uncle and his adopted sister Lenora (Eliza Scanlen). When a charismatic new preacher, Reverend Teagardin (Robert Pattinson) moves into Cold Creek, Arvin's grandmother is eager to please and offers him a meal together with the other parishioners, but ends up humiliated. Things get even worse, though, when Teagardin sets his sights on the lonely Lenora, who visits her mother's grave by the church every day. The events that follow set Arvin on a violent path of no return, one that will lead him back to where it all started: Knockemstiff, Ohio. 

As is the case with many films, I cannot go in depth into how I really feel about this movie without spoiling crucial plot points, so I will say that while the strong performances from actors like Holland, Pattinson and Skarsgard are quite compelling, all them feel a bit wasted considering that they are basically in service of a story that just feels promoting violence for the sake of violence.

There seem to be hints of a critique on religion, based on, well, the title, and the depictions of the war-traumatized Willard, the fanatical preacher Roy who dumps spiders on himself during his sermons to show his congregation his faith, and the slimy Teagardin, but it doesn't seem to be the most in-depth or intelligent commentary on a topic that often makes for compelling fiction.  At least two of those characters are sterling examples of mental illness rather than the ills of religion, and one is just a plain old predator. Also, there's plenty of evil on display from people who don't really identify as religious as all, like the corrupt Sheriff Lee or killers Carl and Sandy, so the film doesn't really make a coherent stab at addressing organized (or for that matter, disorganized) religion.  

What the film, to me at least, seems intent on doing is riling up the audience to make them root for the rash of violence that rages throughout the third act, but unlike Quentin Tarantino, who is generally able to balance even the most gratuitous violence with judicious storytelling and leaven it somehow with humor, writer/director Antonio Campos basically just sets  his  characters on a collision course with the third-act bloodbath, and does its best to get us to cheer for it. 

However, for all of the committed performances by the talented actors in this film, I could not. There's a distinct act of cold-blooded murder that happens well into the film, and we're meant to root for it, and the performers almost sell it, but in the end, it is what it is.  I'm not a huge fan of movies that so transparently try to manipulate me into feeling a certain way (which is one reason I hate horror movies) and I definitely don't care much for a movie that tries to tap into some inner bloodlust the filmmaker is hoping to unleash in its audiences. 

So apart from the spectacle of Tom Holland as a violent hillbilly or Robert Pattinson as a slimy degenerate pastor, there really is not much to see here. 

 

6/10

Sunday, October 4, 2020

So...I'm Reviewing Netflix Movies Now: Enola Holmes

 directed by Harry Bradbeer

written by Jack Thorn (from the book by Mary Springer)

Like most people around the world, I have seen my former pastime of physically going to watch movies at the mall grind to a halt as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. 

I've never been the biggest fan of Netflix, but lately, since my wife upgraded our subscription I've been binge-watching quite a few of their original animated series with my two younger children like The Dragon Prince, the new Transformers series and most recently, the mammoth Voltron: Legendary Defender.  

As a result, I naturally saw ads for Enola Holmes and decided to check it out. 

Enola Holmes is the story of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes' previously unknown sister Enola, played by Stranger Things' breakout star Millie Bobbie Brown.  Raised in a somewhat unorthodox way by her progressive mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) who teaches her a variety of skills, including martial arts, Enola is a real firecracker, albeit one content to live on her mother's estate until, one day, she wakes up to find her gone.  When her brothers, namely government official Mycroft (Sam Claflin) and renowned detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) offer Enola no help in finding Eudoria, with Mycroft even planning to send Enola off to finishing school, she sneaks off and sets out to find her mother on her own. While on a train, she encounters the Viscount Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge), a young noble on the run from his family, who, as Enola discovers, has a somewhat deadly pursuer (Burn Gorman) and a somewhat complicated story, which could actually determine the future of England itself. As she searches for her mother, she comes to realize that there is far more to the Tewkesbury affair that a boy running away from home.

I can appreciate fan fiction of popular characters, provided it's done well, and while it's far from a perfect film, Enola Holmes is an enjoyable enough bit of fanfic, in no small part due to Millie Bobbie Brown's charismatic performance which is punctuated by her frequent fourth-wall breaking.  It's considerably lighter in tone than any of the recent Sherlock Holmes adaptations (we shall not speak of the Will Ferrel/John C. Reilly clusterf**k) with the exception of some brief action violence, and if I'm honest, I feel it really achieves a lot of what it sets out to achieve.

As a period film, it's got a decent helping of production value, with the Victorian (or is it Edwardian) era well captured in the cinematography, art direction and costume design. 

As a whodunit, well, it could just be my age showing but the writers kind of telegraphed their secret long before the climactic revelation of who the real baddie was. 

Perhaps the most awkward thing about the movie, though, was how both Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes were reduced to little better than bumbling idiots. Basically, the writers resorted to the tired old trope of making the female character look good by, well emasculating the males. Henry Cavill, the third superhero actor to play the world famous detective after Robert Downey, Jr. and Benedict Cumberbatch, has the distinction of (arguably) looking the most dapper in his period clothes but even though he's miles more sympathetic than the openly misogynistic caricature that is Mycroft, in the end he's quite emphatically second fiddle to the title character. It's good for a laugh, I suppose, but it still felt like lazy writing, and this movie did deserve better, considering there was quite a bit of decent dialogue here and there.

Still engaging peformances from Brown and Partridge more than make up for this film's shortcomings.  There's just the right the right amount of thrills and derring-do for an adaptation from a young adult book. There's a bit of romantic tension between Enola and the young Viscount but fortunately the filmmakers handle it quite tastefully, and ultimately, it had something meaningful to say about the state of society without banging the "woke" drum too loudly, and certainly not at the expense of an overall  entertaining story. 

Given what I imagine was a relatively small budget, a high viewer count per Netflix's reporting and Brown's popularity I imagine we'll be seeing another of these at some point in the future, and if I'm honest I wouldn't mind at all. 


7.5/10 

 

Sunday, August 30, 2020

And We Thought Movie Theaters Closing Down was the Worst that 2020 Had in Store for the Movies...

It honestly feels strange that after everything we as a species have endured over the last six months or so, including the untimely death of many, many people, whether from the coronavirus or racially-charged violence or extrajudicial killings, that one more death should have any kind of meaningful impact. There have been so many heaping servings of tragedy this year that it was hard to imagine one more delivering quite the same gut punch as the many that came before it. And yet, once more, the year 2020 has managed to leave many of us reeling from the death of an actor, not from COVID-19 but from cancer, a foe that has been around much longer, and which has claimed many, many more lives throughout history. 


I didn't know Chadwick Boseman from Adam, and apart from his turn as Jackie Robinson in Brian Helgeland's biopic 42, and his career-defining performance as Wakandan king T'Challa in the Marvel blockbuster Black Panther and the other Marvel movies in which the character appeared, I hadn't even seen any of his films, which include turns as music icon James Brown in Get On Up and legal luminary Thurgood Marshall in Marshall, though I did enjoy his performances in all the films that I had seen. There's something inherently tragic about the death of someone as young as Boseman was, and who was only just beginning to come into his own as a movie star. The notion of a promising career cut short should be enough to sadden all but the most jaded movie fans. 


 But Black Panther wasn't just another movie, it was a cultural watershed moment for millions of African-Americans. It may have come with the trappings of a big-budget superhero movie, but at a time of police shootings and a racist head of state, it served as a beacon of hope for people who have long felt like second-class citizens in their own country, and Boseman's performance anchored that. I liked it a lot, even though I wasn't the movie's primary audience. For his death to come at a time when America is literally burning as a result of racially-charged rage having boiled over, it just seems like salt being poured into a gaping open wound. 


 Personally, the sadness of all of this, his youth, his promise, and what his performance as Black Panther meant to many, many people brought me to tears, reading more than one article about the unfortunate topic of his death. I'm sure others will have more meaningful things to say about this, but as someone who loves movies and who has ached at the knowledge that I probably won't be able to set foot in a movie theater for at least another year, I felt I had to give my two cents on what is probably the most significant movie-related news of the last several months.

Sunday, May 31, 2020

How The New Star Wars Trilogy Could Have Worked A Lot Better, Using Story Elements that Were Already There

Having "reopened" my blog with a lengthy post on Christopher Nolan's next movie, Tenet, I thought I'd finally say my piece on the new Star Wars trilogy, something I'd been contemplating ever since it ended last December with Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker.

Having reviewed all three of the movies since The Force Awakens came out in December of 2015, I really don't feel like revisitng the individual films, whether it's to defend them or condemn them. The issues of the new trilogy have been raised ad nauseam by any number of bloggers and Youtubers, so I don't feel like reechoeing them either, except to say that I never really got over the fact that John Boyega's Finn was falsely advertised as the new protagonist of the series, especially considering how, over the course of the trilogy, his character was pushed further and further to the fringes in favor of the vomit-inducing "ReyLo."

With that out of the way, I will devote this post to one singular notion that I'd been ruminating on since watching the last movie in the trilogy, one I feel could have been instrumental in curing a lot of what was wrong with the new trilogy.






This post will very obviously contain spoilers for the new Star Wars trilogy, so if you haven't seen it yet and plan on doing so I would suggest you stop reading here.






I respectfully submit that Star Wars: Episodes VII to IX would have worked much better as a trilogy and as a resolution to the Skywalker Saga if they had been written with the single, underlying theme of defining one's self by one's actions and choices rather than one's past or one's lineage.

This really hit home to me with the revelation in Episode IX that the trilogy's main protagonist, Rey, was descended from Emperor Palpatine, the villain of both the original trilogy and its prequels.

It was a nice, meaty story twist, that went a long way towards addressing a lot of questions I had about Rey and for me, at least, dealt with the whole "Mary Sue" issue quite effectively. More than that, though, it opened up a really interesting possibility for introducing some serious conflict for Rey to grapple with, something she had never really done in the two previous films. Unfortunately, though, this potential was never realized. The closest we got to Rey having any conflict was some kind of hallucination/ vision of her "evil self" which actually looked pretty cool but which, again, never went anywhere beyond one scene.


Though the filmmakers made a hash of it, the idea itself, that Rey was directly descended from the consummately evil Palapatine, was a potentially powerful one. It would have fit in nicely with Finn's past as a Stormtrooper dating back to the first movie and even with Poe Dameron's past as a smuggler, also mentioned in the third movie (although that basically made him even more of a Han Solo clone). Taken together, the new "trinity" of Star Wars, had their dark pasts been developed, could have stood in stark juxtaposition to their more virtuous counterparts from the original trilogy, especially as they faced off against the Skywalker legacy embodied by Kylo Ren.


If, rather than simply start his story with his mutiny, the filmmakers had actually shown Finn serving as a stormtrooper for the Emp--err--First Order and doing horrible things before having his epiphany, if they had shown Rey agonizing over whether to embrace her destiny as Palpatine's granddaughter, and if they had shown Poe plying his trade and making a bundle from payments from the First Order, they would have set up epic paths to redemption for the three of them. Rey could still have been the lead, and Kathleen Kennedy could still have had her "Force is Female" cake and eat it too, but the difference would have been that the story undergirding this advocacy would have been so strong that only the most incorrigibly misogynistic Star Wars fans would have taken issue with it. In fact, the sexual tension of "ReyLo" could have ended with Rey ultimately rejecting the evil that Kylo Ren had embraced, and Kylo Ren by extension. This could have made him question his own life choices instead of having his mommy and daddy telling him not to be a bad guy anymore, or it could have just set up a showdown. Either way, the narrative journey would have been so much more potent than what we finally got. Finn, instead of meeting up with a small posse of fellow ex-stormtroopers, could have led an entire stormtrooper uprising which could have helped the Resistance out when all seemed lost. Poe could have rallied all of his smuggler buddies into abandoning the First Order so that the final fight in The Rise of Skywalker wouldn't have looked like a direct rip-off of the "Portals" sequence in Avengers: Endgame.


Also, the underlying theme of "bad guys being redeemed" could have easily integrated story elements from the entire trilogy; little would have gone to waste, including a lot of the heady ideas introduced by Rian Johnson in The Last Jedi, like the "democratization" of the Force, and the notion that both the good guys and the bad guys go to the same weapons supplier, and the whole socio-economic class divide, among others. If anything, these ideas could have added some nice nuance to the journey of redemption by reinforcing the biasees Finn and Poe may have had for the lives they were leading and effectively almost luring Rey over to the Dark Side before they would all see the proverbial light.


I have no interest in "rewriting" the script of each of the sequel trilogy's installments or going detail-by-detail on how each film could have been better, but I firmly believe that having an underlying theme would have helped form a solid foundation for the narrative of the new trilogy, one which could have withsthood all kinds of unforeseen circumstances. Had Kennedy, her writers and directors focused on this theme of actively choosing one's path over one's pre-charted destiny, which they touched on in their movies, the storytelling could have easily been adapted to accommodate Carrie Fisher's death and we wouldn't have had the absurd situation of stiching old footage of her together and having her speak in non-sequiturs in The Rise of Skywalker.



It's obviously too late to undo the last trilogy, but the idea of a theme underlying another series of films is something that I honestly hope the powers-that-be at Lucasfilm consider while preparing their next series of movies.

Saturday, May 30, 2020

How Christopher Nolan May Have Just Smashed a Glass Ceiling for African-Americans

It was somewhat painful to basically shut this blog down for two months as I was unable to watch anything new in theaters (and I have no interest in anything on Netflix, before anyone brings that up). I had earlier posted, pre-coronavirus about how I was sure that I would not be watching as many movies in 2020 as I did last year, but apparently I didn't even know the half of it.


This post has been brewing in my mind since I first saw the trailer for the upcoming Christopher Nolan film Tenet during the middle of our soon-to-end lockdown. The second trailer dropped, and I thought: I HAVE to write this post. The killing of George Floyd has raised a much more important conversation about racism, but since we're on the topic of representation, I figured this might still have some relevance in its own way.


To be direct, Tenet looks amazing. I'm sure I have nothing to say that hasn't already been exclaimed in dozens of "reaction" videos on Youtube. The first trailer gave us a great tease as to what to look forward to, and the second trailer, while showing some pretty intense action sequences, also answered a few of the main questions that the first trailer provoked, most prominent of which being: what the heck is this movie even about?


Some people have been happy to note that this is the first time Christopher Nolan has cast an African-American in the lead of any of his movies, and in this case it happens to be his most ambitious, most expensive original movie to date.


I'm happy because more than just being a first for Nolan, this marks a first for the endangered species known as the original blockbuster movie.


It's the very first time in history that a big-budget, action science-fiction extravaganza NOT based on any preexisting intellectual property, NOT part of some huge franchise effort and directed by a top-flight director at the very top of his game, has featured in the lead role an African-American actor who is NOT a known box-office draw. In short, Nolan cast a black man in his movie for the simple reason that he believes the actor, John David Washington is right for the part, NOT because he is guaranteed to put more fannies in the currently empty seats at movie theaters.


Before anyone asserts that I'm making too big a deal of this and tries to cite big movies from the 1970s (the dawn of the blockbuster), 1980s, 1990s, 2000s or 2010s, let me save you the trouble as I have already given this quite a bit of thought. I'm going to list a series of action blockbusters starring black male leads and explain why they aren't anywhere near the milestone that Tenet is. I'll name them in chronological order.


1) Nighthawks (1981) - Billy Dee Williams played second fiddle to white Slyvester Stallone's police detective, and didn't even figure in the film's climax.

2) 48 Hours (1982) - Eddie Murphy co-starred in this with an older, more established white actor Nick Nolte.

3) Beverly Hills Cop (1984) - Eddie Murphy, already a bit of a draw thanks to the success of 48 Hours, was only brought on board after white actors Mickey Rourke and Stallone passed on the role.

4) The Golden Child (1986) - Eddie Murphy was already established as a box-office draw. Also, the director Michael Ritchie, while well-regarded, was not an A-lister.

5) Lethal Weapon (1987) - Danny Glover spent the first of four films being sometimes co-lead and frequent second fiddle to Mel Gibson.

6) Rising Sun (1993) - Wesley Snipes was a co-lead with Sean Connery in this Michael Crichton adaptation.

7) Bad Boys (1995) - This was a relatively low-budget movie made by a then-fledgling Michael Bay. Will Smith had some clout as a television star and the success of this movie cemented it.

8) Crimson Tide (1995) - Denzel Washington (Tenet star John David Washington's dad) was an established star with an Oscar under his belt and a previous box-office hit, The Pelican Brief, in which he had co-starred with Julia Roberts. Also this film was co-anchored by French Connection star Gene Hackman. This would be the first of many action films that Washington and director Tony Scott of Top Gun fame would do together.

9) Se7en (1995) - Morgan Freeman was co-lead with then white-hot (pun intended) "it boy" Brad Pitt.

10) Independence Day (1996) - Will Smith was part of a large ensemble cast that included Bill Pullman and Jeff Goldblum. Also, he already had some box-office clout following the success of Bad Boys.

11) Kiss the Girls (1997) - Morgan Freeman co-starred with Ashley Judd in this movie directed by young, relatively new director Gary Fleder.

12) Men in Black (1997) - Again, Will Smith, by this time, already had some degree of box-office clout, and even then this film was co-anchored by The Fugitive's Tommy Lee Jones, who got higher billing.

13) Blade (1998) - The first ever Marvel-based movie to succeed, starring Wesley Snipes as the lead in a film directed by someone who had only ever directed music videos before that and whose most notable career achievement, arguably, is killing Sean Connery's career along with his own.

14) Enemy of the State (1998...LOVE this movie by the way) - Will Smith was an established star at this point, and this was actually a role Tom Cruise, who had worked with Tony Scott in Top Gun and Days of Thunder refused.

15) The Bone Collector (1999) - Denzel Washington starred as a paraplegic police investigator opposite up-and-comer Angelina Jolie.

16) Training Day (2001) - More a drama than an action movie, this movie, for which Washington won his first leading-role Oscar, was directed by a then-young African-American Antoine Fuqua and actually featured Washington as the bad guy opposite white Ethan Hawke's rookie cop.

17) Man on Fire (2004) - This was the second collaboration between certified box-office star Washington and Tony Scott.

18) I, Robot (2004) - Again, Will Smith was already an established star, and a lot better-known than the director of the film Alex Proyas.

19) I Am Legend (2007) - Will Smith was such a star he could even sell a movie where his co-star for most of the running time was a German Shepherd. He was and still is far, far better known than the director of the film.

20) American Gangster (2007) - In this film which is more drama than action movie, Ridley Scott directed Denzel Washington opposite Russell Crowe.

21) Hancock (2008) - Will Smith did the superhero thing without having to pay Marvel or DC any royalties. It was directed by the respected, but not exactly renowned Peter Berg.

22) Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) - Scott and Washington collaborated again, this time bringing on board John Travolta as the antagonist.

23) Unstoppable (2010) - This was another Scott/Washington collaboration, this time with up-and-comer (and white) Chris Pine.

24) Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012) - Dwayne Johnson (more often identified as Samoan than African-American, but who is definitely black) starred in the first of many hand-me-down franchise movies with b-list directors. B-LIST.

25) Safe House (2012) - Established star Denzel Washington shared the screen with the younger (and white) Ryan Reynolds.

26) Django Unchained (2012) - Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx played a freed slave who went on a killing spree in the antebellum South with the help of his (white) benefector played by Christoph Waltz in a film directed by Quentin Tarantino the highest profile director on this list.

27) G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) - Dwayne Johnson continued his franchise-inheriting tradition. Again, no A-list director in sight.

28) After (shudder) Earth (2013) - This was the film that almost killed Will Smith's career, directed by a then-over-the-hill M. Night Shyamalan.

29) The Equalizer (2014) - Washington reunited with Fuqua for the first time since Training Day.

30) San Andreas (2015) - Dwayne Johnson sold a non-franchise movie, but without an A-list director or, appparently, much of a plot.

31) Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) - Disney's marketing department fooled everyone into thinking that the black ex-stormtooper Finn, played by John Boyega, was the lead of the movie. Spoiler alert: he wasn't.

32) Suicide Squad (2016) - Will Smith's stock as an action star had dropped a bit, so he signed up for something connected to existing IP.

33) The Magnificent Seven (2016) - Denzel Washington teamed up with Antoine Fuqua yet again, this time with an ensemble of actors that included Chris Pratt and Ethan Hawke for a remake of the old Western starring Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen.

34) Black Panther (2018) - Chadwick Boseman's Wakandan hero was part of the enormous Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the film was helmed by an up-and-coming African-American director, Ryan Coogler.

35) Hobbes and Shaw (2019) - Dwayne Johnson, part of the Fast and Furious ensemble since 2011, finally got his own spinoff movie, which he had to share with white Jason Statham, who actually started out as an antagonist in the series.


Now, tell me, how many of those action movies were directed by heavy-hitters of any of those eras like Steven Spielberg, Tobe Hooper, Ivan Reitman, Andrew Davis, Jan de Bont, James Cameron, John McTiernan, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, the Wachowski siblings, Stephen Soderbergh or Robert Zemeckis? How many of them featured a lone black actor as a lead? How many of them carried a budget of over $100 million or (gasp) $200 million? If I were to cut out the movies that didn't feature a black actor paired with a white one, including the most recent Hobbs and Shaw, my list would basically be chopped in half. If I were to be really strict about my criteria, and revert to "original IP action film directed by a firmly established, A-list director with a relatively unknown black actor in the SOLE lead role" like I mentioned at the beginning of this post, that list would pretty much vanish.


Arguably (for me) the most notable figure here is Steven Spielberg, whose so-far unparalleled career success spans five decades and numerous blockbusters, who, for all his clout, has never directed a commercial action blockbuster with an African-American male in the lead role. He actually executive-produced the Men in Black movies, but for some reason has never gotten around to directing an action film with an African-American as a lead. Even his most recent film, Ready Player One, featured a white lead with a number of persons of color as his sidekicks in an awkward throwback to the 80s. I would honestly have figured that before anyone else, he would have broken that unfortunate streak.


Prior to Black Panther grossing $1.3 billion at the global box-office the conventional wisdom was that action movies with African-American or otherwise black leads were strictly for niche audiences and didn't sell outside of the U.S. Spielberg is the kind of director who could have given a middle finger to that conventional wisdom, but has basically passed up the chance. For five decades. Is he a racist? No, I don't believe that for a second, nor do I claim to know what his thought process for choosing projects or actors is, but I will say this: of all the A-list directors I've named, he was the one I figured most likely to upset that status quo, and I was disappointed that he never did.


So let's get back to Nolan.


If there has ever been an heir apparent to Steven Spielberg's empire as a filmmaker it's Christopher Nolan, who first captivated audiences with his take on Batman in his Dark Knight trilogy, but who has since established himself as equally, if not even more adept at producing fantastic original content, as he showed with films like Inception and Dunkirk, and to a lesser extent Interstellar. Because he is able to produce both exhilarating and thought-provoking blockbusters without searing violence, he is far more accessible than Quentin Tarantino, whose revenge fantasy Django Unchained with Jamie Foxx in the lead role is the closest any big-name director has come to making a movie like Tenet, but which in my opinion still misses the mark as it misses quite a few of the criteria I mentioned.


Such is Nolan's influence and cultural footprint that the movies he makes, which come out every three or four years, are considered events just by virtue of having his name on them. He is now the main selling point of any movie he directs, like Spielberg once was, and he can choose whomever he wants to star as the lead in his movies. In the past, this has meant having "the pick of the litter" in terms of leading actors, like Leonardo diCarpio in Inception and Matthew McConaughey in Interstellar. Dunkirk showed, however, that he could sell a movie without any big names in the cast.


Given the critique, though, that he tended to put white people in leading roles, I personally never imagined him capable of putting a relatively unknown African-American actor in the lead role of his most expensive original film to date. Sure, Washington may be of distinguished parentage, but he's never anchored a big movie by himself and at the time of his casting his only major film credit was Spike Lee's BlacKkKlansman. If anything, Washington's BlacKkKlansman co-star, the Oscar-nominated Adam Driver, who also happened to be the breakout star of the new Star Wars trilogy, would have seemed a more likely candidate for Nolan to cast as the lead, or even Washington's Tenet co-star Robert Pattinson, who snagged the coveted Batman role yet, who, by the trailers, appears very much to be playing a supporting character in Tenet.


Nolan's act of casting Washington basically takes the "conventional wisdom" and gives it a $200 million kick out the window. Was it inspired by the success of Black Panther? Maybe, but that's not important. What's important is that arguably the most influential filmmaker of this generation has declared in no uncertain terms that he's willing to bet $200 million of a studio's money on a film that isn't based on a popular preexisting property with a person of color in the lead role, and given that both he and studio Warner Brothers have determined that this film will keep its theatrical release date even WITH the coronavirus pandemic now ongoing, they have basically doubled this film's ultimate cultural importance.


It's worth pointing out that the call for more representation in film, which has often derisively been described as the call to go "woke," eventually came about when people of color, whether black, yellow, red or anything other than white, realized after years of watching movies, that almost all of their larger-than-life, big screen heroes were mostly Caucasian males. This was exacerbated by the unfortunate fact of whitewashing (which is a whole other post in and of itself). It has admittedly metamorphosed into something a bit unwieldy, and has spawned some really unfortunate, rather hateful quips like "get woke, go broke" but at its heart it's simply a reaction to the fact that for decades, casting in movies has been grossly lopsided in favor of one race and one gender. Who knows, maybe if casting decisions like Nolan's had been made long ago by the likes of Spielberg and John McTiernan in the 80s and 90s, maybe we never would even have gotten turkeys like 2019's Charlie's Angels, because people wouldn't have felt the need to push back so hard. Here's the thing; every race on earth deserves to have their own heroes on film.


I am under no delusion that John David Washington's casting in Tenet will bring an end to the killing of black men by white cops or any other blatant or subtle form of racism. Black Panther, with all its hundreds of millions and its Oscars, certainly didn't stop George Floyd from being murdered in the street, just as Beverly Hills Cop did nothing to stop Rodney King from being beaten to a pulp.


The thing is, though, since they were first introduced over a hundred years ago, movies have formed part of our collective narrative as living beings. They reflect our cultural mores, and sometimes even shape them. Even as they mirror the meaner aspects of who we are, they are often aspirational, and the best of these stories can really stay with us. Now, especially, that the market for movies has really opened up with wider global releases and streaming platforms that make movies available to a much, much wider audience, it matters more than ever that movies speaking to a truly global audience reflect what that audience actually looks like. Considering how many people all around the world are able to watch Hollywood movies nowadays, having white male protagonists at the center of most of these stories just doesn't make sense anymore.


This was one thing I really liked about Yesterday, a flawed but fun film that featured an Englishman of Indian descent in the lead role without batting an eyelid or making a big stink about his interracial romance with a white girl. It's a pity it had its share of problems that were completely unrelated to this casting, but at least they got that bit right.


Tenet stands to be a bigger deal than Yesterday, as a major tentpole by the era's single most influential director. As unlikely as it sounds, it could herald a very significant change for the better in the way we tell our stories, and in a day and age starved for good news, that is a good thing.

Monday, March 2, 2020

A New Take on an Old Classic: A Review of "Little Women"

written for the screen and directed by Greta Gerwig

This marks my first new post since I was locked out of my blog for nearly a month due to a password snafu, and boy it feels good to be back.

It's equally gratifying to review a movie that was thoroughly satisfying to watch, if flawed in a few ways.

Little Women, based on the beloved novel by Louisa May Alcott, is the story of the March sisters, Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Beth (Eliza Scanlen) and Amy (Florence Pugh), who come of age in Concord, Massachusetts both during and in the aftermath of the American Civil War. They face the tribulations of poverty, the anxiety of having a father go off to war, of illness, and adolescence in general and all of the challenges that come along with it. They live with their mother (Laura Dern) whom they affectionately call "Marmee" and are neighbors with their miserly Aunt March (Meryl Streep) and the seemingly curmudgeonly widower Mr. Lawrence (Chris Cooper) whose grandson Theodore or Laurie (Timothee Chalemet) strikes up a friendship with the girls, and Jo in particular. As the years pass and innocence fades, Jo and her sisters find that life can be a lot more difficult than they imagined while growing up, and that more than anything else, they will need each other to get through the tough times ahead.

I consider myself fortunate that not only have I never read more than a severely abridged version of the original novel, but that I have also never seen a single of the many adaptations of this seminal work prior to this film. That way, I was able to appreciate the story as a fresh experience, albeit one fused with writer-director Greta Gerwig's modern sensibility. Most notable among the liberties Gerwig took with the source material was to tell the story out of sequence, having it start with an adult Jo working as a struggling writer in 1868 New York, and looking back on her years growing up. It's an interesting and mostly effective storytelling technique, and rather than have the present bookend the past as some writers would tend to do, Gerwig jumps back and forth between the two, often in very effective juxtaposition, especially in one crucial sequence that will no doubt be familiar to readers of the book. It's only the slightest bit jarring, but Gerwig pulls it off beautifully, and wraps things up quite nicely, even though late into the film the narrative wanders into "meta" territory and makes one wonder if the ending is "real" or as it is imagined in the novel that Jo writes and successfully publishes.

While this kind of movie isn't normally my cup of tea, I always appreciate good storytelling and compelling characters, and Gerwig delivers on both fronts, aided by a stellar cast highlighted by performances from Ronan, Pugh, Chalemet and the ever-reliable Meryl Streep, among others, and a consummately-talented crew including two-time Academy-Award-winning composer Alexandre Desplat, whose sweeping orchestral score was a significant departure from his quirkier work for Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel and his jazzy, contemparary score for otherwise forgettable The Secret Life of Pets.

I generally enjoyed the movie, which thanks to its performances and Gerwig's creative appraoch to storytelling never drags, but I have to say that there was one element of it all that took me right out of the story, and that was the fact that Pugh, apart from playing adult Amy, was also playing her at twelve or thirteen, which, in all honesty, felt a little silly considering that some of those scenes were vaguely reminiscent of a Saturday-Night-Live skit, especially one particular scene in which Pugh, quite clearly an adult with her deep, husky voice, acted opposite actual children. At least one prior adaptation of this novel addressed the age gap between child and adult Amy by having two separate actresses play her at these different stages and it's my humble opinion that this should have been the way to go here, or at least some kind of CGI trickery. It's a shame, though considering how well Pugh performs as the adult Amy, and I understand that Gerwig's narrative goal is to show the character's inner transformation from spoiled child to weary adult, but really, having a twenty-two year old play a twelve-year-old was always going to be a stretch.

I was happy to have a movie for my post-millennial girls to enjoy considering how many Marvel slugfests I've dragged them to over the years, and I hope Gerwig's success means we'll be getting more movies like this in the future.

8.5/10

Sunday, February 23, 2020

It May Have Just Lost to "Parasite" but "1917" Can Still Hold Its Head High

directed by Sam Mendes
written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns

Unlike the Second World War, which has been the subject of many, many films since it wrought its havoc on four different continents three quarters of a century ago, the First World War, while it's also been the subject of films (including Academy Award winner for Best Picture All Quiet on the Western Front) it's never been depicted in a film quite like "1917," though, for that matter, neither has any other war.

"1917," written by director Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns based loosely on stories told to Mendes by his grandfather, follows two young soldiers, Lance Corporal Blake (Dean Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) on a mission given by General Erinmore (Colin Firth), to stop a regiment of Allies, 1,600 soldiers, from walking straight into a trap. The story, which I have just described, is simplicity itself, but what sets this movie apart from most (if not all) other war movies is how it has been crafted to look like one continuous shot, meaning that the viewer follows Blake and Schofield as they embark on their mission in real time.

Director Mendes sort of cut his teeth on this kind of shot in the first several minutes of the last James Bond film he directed, "Spectre" but here he takes the technique to the next level, really dropping viewers right into the action with the protagonists and conveying the urgency of their mission. There is, as a result, never a dull moment.

The camera work is nothing short of astonishing; considering that the two corporals are in near-constant motion, cinematographer Roger Deakins (who won a well-deserved second Oscar for this film) and his crew have to keep pace with them, and the tricks of the trade employed to help the camera move around huge craters and barbed wire fences are really the stuff that great films are made of. This isn't some simple drone hovering around and filming everyone; the camera gets up close and personal with the two soldiers, who take up most of the screentime, and keeps the audience very much in the moment.

Also, frequent Mendes collaborator Thomas Newman (who, like Deakins once was, is always unfortunately an Oscar bridesmaid but never the bride) turns in one of his more powerful and urgent scores, a bit of a contrast from what he's done before.

Because of the way Mendes has chosen to tell the story, though, there are inevitable tradeoffs. The story focuses so much on the mission that potentially strong thematic elements, like the fact that World War I was by and large a case of wealthy people sending working class people off to die rather than some just crusade against evil, inevitably fall by the wayside. Mendes does drop hints of it, like Schofield's disdain for the medal he received for valor at the Battle of Somme, and a bit of dialogue in which a General shouts at his subordinates to remove a fallen tree while he sits in his car, and makes me wonder what a more thought-provoking narrative about World War I would have been like. As it is, though, these questions take a back seat to the spectacle.

But oh, what spectacle it is.

8.5/10

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Dancing on a Knife's Edge For An Hour and Forty-Nine Minutes: A Review of Jojo Rabbit

written and directed by Taika Waititi
based (loosely) on the book Caging Skies by Christine Leunens

There's been a lot of discussion as to whether or not the movie Jojo Rabbit was made in good taste, and even though we live in a day and age in which "I'm offended" is a catch-phrase that's so overused it's become the object of ridicule, it's not an altogether invalid question. Although comedies have been made about World War II in general and even Hitler in particular, it's still worth asking if the film in question has been well-made, and in this case, the answer would most definitely have to be "yes."

Johannes Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis) is a 10-year-old German boy who, in the last few months of World War II, joins the Hitler Youth, which represented one of the Third Reich's last desperate attempts to gather up warm bodies for their failing war effort. Like many of his fellow recruits, Johannes or Jojo is fanatically devoted to Der Fuhrer Adolf Hitler and his teachings, like his all-abiding hatred of Jews, and even has him as a somewhat goofy imaginary friend (played by director Taika Waititi himself). Being smaller than the other recruits, Jojo is regularly bullied and, when he refuses to kill a rabbit, is derisively nicknamed "Jojo Rabbit." It's not all bad, though; while at boot camp Jojo hangs out with his best friend Yorki (Archie Yates) and is later looked after by the kindly if often scatterbrained Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell) and his aide and possible boyfriend Finkel (Alfie Allen) and, most importantly is loved by his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson), who detests the war and wants nothing more than for it to end. Then, one day, to his shock, Jojo discovers that, hidden in his very own house, lives a Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin MacKenzie). Jojo realizes he cannot sound the alarm, lest his mother get in trouble for harboring the enemy, and he is at a loss as to what to do to serve his Fuhrer, especially when his feelings start getting in the way of his deeply-held beliefs.

It's hard to shake the feeling that one thing the filmmakers are stating, in the most thinly-veiled way imaginable, is that fanatics are basically children, but to the film's credit it's got so much more going for it than that. While a love story at heart, the movie still tells the story of a budding fanatic, never missing an opportunity to point out just how ridiculous his beliefs are. What is perhaps even more amazing is that a lot of the propaganda discussed in the film which depicts Jews as being less than human is not even a contrivance of the script but rather derived from actual Nazi propaganda back in the day. It's basically like the jokes wrote themselves.

Still, the film has its fair share of unsettling moments as it shifts in tone between comedic and dramatic, quite often stepping ever-so-slightly into inappropriate territory but overall it does an admirable job of maintaining the balance. This isn't a Mel Brooks or Abrahams-Zucker movie that basically chucks any pretense of seriousness out the window from the word "go;" it dares to mix both the levity and the grimness of war. Keeping that balance is what makes this film as effective as it is, as exemplified when it delivers one of its more stunning moments with the requisite impact. Also, Waititi's choice to keep the film grounded in the horror of war, even amidst all the farce, makes it that much easier to connect with his characters.

Another thing that keeps the narrative from becoming too unwieldy is the fact that every single actor in this film is in tip-top form, from Scarlett Johansson to Sam Rockwell to Stephen Merchant, who plays a slimy Gestapo officer, to newcomer Roman Griffin Davis. In particular, there is this distinct sweetness in the relationship between Johansson's Rosie and her fanatical son Jojo, which is easily the most important relationship in the entire film and which I'm sure, in this day and age of families divided along lines of political loyalty, resonated with quite a lot of viewers living in countries grappling with authoritarian leaders. It's also this loving dynamic that gives the film its real power, as Waititi surely recognized that the movie could not simply coast on the chutzpah that enabled him to make this film in the first place. Rockwell also deserves special mention for his portrayal of the bumbling Klenzendorf, a character who could easily have descended into caricature but whom Rockwell imbues with a surprising amount of humanity. Also, in a day an age in which queerbaiting is an unfortunate reality in Hollywood movies (I'm looking at you, Captain Marvel and Star Wars: Episode IX: Rise of Skywalker), it was surprisingly pleasant to see a genuinely-developed LGBT character whose sexuality was an integral part of some very important decisions he made in the context of the story. Even the zanier characters like Rebel Wilson's overzealous Fraulein Rah and Stephen Merchant's goofy gestapo agent come off well.

If there's anything that weighs the movie down it's not the humor but the occasional heavy-handedness of the sentimentality, though fortunately that doesn't happen too often throughout the film.

Waititi truly is a gifted storyteller; it would have been very easy to get this film terribly wrong, but amazingly, he manages the balancing act all the way to the finish line. For that, this movie really is quite a unique achievement.


8/10



Friday, January 17, 2020

Moving on From Weinstein: Why "Parasite" Needs to Win the Best Picture Oscar of 2020

Of the nine films nominated for Best Motion Picture of the year by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a whopping six were produced by studios (with Fox Searchlight, which released nominee Jojo Rabbit being a specialty arm of the 20th Century Fox studio, which in turn is owned by Disney), two were produced by Netflix, one, namely The Irishman, at massive cost, and only one really fits the bill of an independent movie, the Bong Joon-Ho gem Parasite.

In reaction to the accusation that only movies that nobody ever actually watches get nominated for Academy Awards, the Academy has clearly gone too far in the other direction this year, loading their slate with studio films, including one that was somewhat divisive among critics, and one which was picked from the carcass of Harvey Weinstein's empire in what feels distinctly like an effort at appeasement. And then there's the #oscarssowhite campaign, which was dusted off again this year in response to an apparent snub of actors of color in the nominations.

Parasite is one of only three films that I have seen that were nominated for Best Picture this year, the other two being Ford v. Ferrari (which I loved) and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (which I hated), and while as a fan of motorsport I enjoyed Ford v. Ferrari more than Parasite, I will readily concede that it is the latter film that deserves to walk away with the top prize from this year's Academy Awards, not just for its quality and awards pedigree, which are already reasons in and of themselves, but for an altogether different reason, namely what's at stake.

As dramatic as this may sound, the future of independent film may well depend on how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences chooses to recognize Parasite.

Since Harvey Weinstein's empire built on independent films fell apart, there's been a fairly big question mark hovering over the future of independent cinema. As unpalatable as it may be to contemplate in view of his behavior, there really has never been anyone who has championed independent movies quite as successfully as Weinstein has, and his fall from grace has definitely left a vacuum which a number of "pretenders" like A24 are still struggling to fill. Unfortunately, with plummeting viewership ratings and a persistent complaint that nobody actually sees any of the movies that are nominated for Oscars, the AMPAS looks set to ditch independent movies as well, especially with the emergence of Netflix as a force in championing movies that would otherwise not get a full-fledged theatrical release.

The emergence of Netflix as the heir-apparent to Harvey Weinstein as the champion of independent film is something that should worry anyone who still loves going to the movies as opposed to watching them on their phones, and if the Academy hands the Best Picture Oscar out to either of Netflix's two nominees, it will virtually be crowning them as the new Miramax. Of course, if the award goes to a studio flick, then it's somewhat self-explanatory as to why this is going to be a bad thing for the theatrical future of independent movies. The argument for Netflix, which started sometime ago but only really started gaining traction last year when Alfonso Cuaron's Roma scored the studio's first brace of Oscar nominations, was that they made movies that no one else had the cojones to make, including stories by maverick filmmakers which studios found too risky to spend too much money on, and they knew how to market them too. It wasn't exactly wrong, even though it was a bit of a cheat; Roma only had a token theatrical release in order to qualify for the Oscars, which is the same strategy Netflix has employed for its two nominees this year The Irishman and Marriage Story. Both of them have spent such negligible time in actual movie theaters that their grosses aren't even being reported.

Parasite, in contrast, is a big, fat fucking middle finger to this model. It's in theaters right now, all around the world, and has grossed an awesome $136,720,990 (and counting) against a paltry $11 million budget. Fledgling studio Neon has taken up the cudgels for distributing this film in the United States and Canada and has dared to be different with a theatrical release. Its courage has been rewarded; the movie has already doubled its budget in terms of earnings in the U.S., with plenty of fuel left in the tank. Long story short: the movie is a financial success, despite being the kind of movie that many pundits claim can no longer be made. If it's rewarded for its audacity, as it was in Cannes at the expense of Tarantino's overrated Hollywood, then promising filmmakers won't need to peddle their wares to Netflix or hope to God that Bob Iger or Tom Rothman returns their phone calls. It's been said that Iger, who on behalf of Walt Disney purchased 20th Century Fox and its sub-brand Fox Searchlight, did so because they knew how to make and market awards contenders, something Ford v Ferrari and Jojo Rabbit have borne out. In short, there is a market for the little movie that could, and if the Academy awards Neon, then there are fair odds that the independent film will live to see big screens another day.

I hope they make the right choice.

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Marvel's (Cautious) Vote of Confidence: Contemplating the Troubled History and Potential Future of "The New Mutants"

Following one of my most active years this blog in some time, 2020 will mark a year in which I'm almost certain to scale back from my output. With Phase 3 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Skywalker Saga having ended, there are not quite as many franchise movies slated for release this year pulling me to theaters, and there are simply more pressing things on which to spend my money.

That said, there is at least one movie I am now particularly interested in seeing, and as fate may have it, it may well be the first franchise movie I see this year (or not).

A few days ago, for the first time in literally more than two years, we got a new trailer for the long-gestating Marvel Comics adaptation The New Mutants. This was the first "proof of life" that 20th Century Fox, now owned by the Walt Disney Company, had given of this film since it first dropped a trailer back in October of 2017.

To provide a recap for anyone unfamiliar with the sordid history of this film, here are the undisputed facts: An adaptation of the Marvel Comics title "The New Mutants" was greenlit by 20th Century Fox back in 2015, way before they were bought by Disney and back when they had full film rights over the X-Men corner of the Marvel Universe. Filming took place from July to September 2017, and a trailer dropped a month later with an announced release date of April 2018. Then, Disney bought out Fox, and the film's release date was reshuffled three more times, once to February 2019, then to August 2019, and finally, to April 2020.

As we go from firm facts to scuttlebutt and reports from unverified sources, we then consider reports of Disney being "unimpressed" with the cut that 20th Century Fox had prepared for release and unconvinced of its box-office potential, and read about about re-shoots designed to restore director Josh Boone's original vision, as well as the removal of any and all footage connecting the movie to any and all previous X-Men movies. We also take heart at the report of a better reception for the new iteration of the film at test screenings.

From there, we jump into the realm of speculation, where many of us latch onto the one truly interesting prospect: that Kevin Feige, depending on how well The New Mutants does in theaters, may well integrate the characters into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Feige has openly expressed his intent to integrate mutants into the Marvel Cinematic Universe in several years' time; a warm reception for The New Mutants may expedite that process.

Given that the latest trailer was released bearing the 20th Century Fox trade dress as well as the simple "Marvel" as opposed to the "Marvel Studios" logo, it's clear that as of now The New Mutants is still its own thing, albeit apparently severed from the now-dead Fox X-Men universe. Disney is playing it safe in that regard, but given that they've retained the fairly competitive April release date and have cut a slick new trailer, it seems fairly clear that they're making a serious push for this movie, which, unlike the unloved Dark Phoenix has the distinction of being the first Marvel-based movie of the year, and the first to be released in over nine months. In short, unlike Dark Phoenix it could benefit from pent-up demand.

It's worth remembering that the first trailer that came out over two years ago for this film wasn't half-bad, and if anything this new one has reinforced the movie's potential to deliver something special.

For my part, having gorged myself on these MCU movies for the last decade, I have had my fill, especially with Avengers: Endgame providing as satisfying a conclusion as there could possibly be to this sprawling 22-movie saga, and I would not mind seeing something new, like the comic-book/horror hybrid this film promises to be. More than Black Widow which looks likely be thoroughly entertaining but which, if I'm honest, kind of has a same-old, same-old vibe to it, The New Mutants looks like it could herald something genuinely new and exciting for the MCU, assuming the "potential integration" rumor to be true. Also, with three strong, female characters, including Native American Blu Hunt, it's certainly no slouch in the "representation" department.

More important than scoring PC points, though, I find it refreshing to read about a director's original vision for a film being restored in a day and age in which so studios tend to micromanage films to death, especially franchise films. Many Spider-Man fans have heard or read about how Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach micromanaged Sony's Amazing Spider-Man franchise right into the ground, and I'm sure a ton of X-Men movie fans know how former Fox boss Tom Rothman repeatedly screwed that franchise right up until the time he was fired. Even Marvel hasn't been above micro-managing some of their films, always hovering over their directors even in the best of circumstances, so to read about them basically telling the director "we'll do it your way" is really encouraging.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the film will be any good, but given how often Feige has been able to spot the good Marvel adaptations, I remain cautiously optimistic.

The fact that Marvel's putting its marketing muscle behind this movie shows that the confidence is there, with the only question remaining is if the movie itself can deliver the goods.