Sting is a good, not great kind of movie. It's not bad, it's not spectacular. Sure, it has a lot of cliches and it's fairly predictable, but it makes up for it with some cool aspects. First off, the spider looks and sounds pretty good. As a creature feature, it works fairly well. A lot of it is set in the vents and air ducts of a Brooklyn brownstone, which is interesting but unfortunately underutilized. The claustrophobic setting generally does work pretty well. The kills are brutal, and it very much leans into the body horror subgenre (which is what disturbs me personally, so it was effective in that regard). Think back to middle school science class and imagine what you know spiders do to their prey, and now imagine that happening to people. That's what goes on in it. The effects are quite good. The characters are bland, tropey, and forgettable. But then again, are you seeing this movie for the characters or for the killer spider? There's a great tension-building atmosphere, and there are some pretty cool shots from the spider's perspective. The dialogue isn't the best, and every attempt at humor falls flat. It's a fine movie, nothing too special, but if you're the type of horror fan who's in it for those brutal kills, it has those.
Reviews
146 Reviews
Barbie
(I) (2023)
Barbie
30 March 2024
This was an interesting film. Nothing about it was normal. It takes an iconic toy brand and makes a serious social commentary/coming of age story out of it. It was also a smash hit financially, backed by a strong social media campaign linking it with a movie about nuclear bombs. That's impossible to repeat.
From a technical standpoint, it's amazing. The casting was perfect. Margot Robbie is the perfect "stereotypical Barbie." This is a Barbie that is both the perfect doll she is known as, and also the maturing Barbie who's seeking a purpose and to right her world. They could not have picked a better leading actress. Ryan Gosling is the perfect Ken. Even the characters created for this movie were perfectly cast, especially Will Farrell as the CEO of Mattel (it's my personal headcanon that he and President Business from the Lego Movie are the same person, also it's amazing Mattel was okay with this script). Note for anyone who didn't have Barbie in their childhoods: there is Barbie lore, and the movie does assume you know who the characters are.
You will never see a movie that looks like this again. Barbie enters a rare selection of movies that are instantly recognizable from a single screenshot. Barbieland looks exactly like a world made of Barbie dream houses. The bright pastel colors, the overload of pink, the way everything is shaped makes it a real life town of dollhouses, and it's highly impressive. It's made with such a real love for its source seldom seen in movies. Additionally, part of what makes the casting so good is the ability to make the actors look like dolls. The soundtrack perfectly befits the film. The two dance numbers (one for the Barbies, one for the Kens) are very well choreographed. Perhaps most importantly for fans and enthusiasts, there are several wardrobes worth of costumes for all the Barbies, based on different outfits she's worn over the years.
This is, as one would expect from Gerwig, also a film carrying strong feminist messaging. Some people were surprised by that upon release, although being surprised by a Greta Gerwig movie having feminist messaging is like being surprised that a Tarantino movie is violent. This is where things get complicated. On one hand, the messages appear to hit the audience with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, which some may deem necessary given the urgency of its subject matter. On the other hand, it's so over the top it's difficult to tell how seriously you're supposed to be taking it. It often feels like a satire of itself. There are times when it feels like a Mel Brooks movie. This is a problem because it muddies the message. You could very well watch this movie and come to the conclusion that it's supposed to be a satirical takedown of feminism, which is the last thing the filmmakers want you to do. And when it does spell it out, it can very easily come off as preachy. This is quite a conundrum, and highly ironic. I'm really not sure how a filmmaker would make this work.
Now, despite all exterior appearances, Barbie is a very nuanced film that has several layers to it, and does not provide all of the answers, nor does it need to. Now, while it is ultimately a feminist film, it does not shy away from addressing some things the movement is doing wrong and has done wrong in the past. No matter how it may look or seem on the outside, there's a whole world of ideas in its subtext. This is where the strength of its messages lies, not in the bluntness of its outer appearance. It does have some comic relief, which is mostly meta humor. Not my cup of tea, but if you like it then enjoy it. There are some references to movies like 2001 and The Matrix, which are funny.
This is a movie that's going to be a game changer for the industry. Between the success of Barbie and the failure of movies such as The Marvels, there is going to be a change in how blockbusters for women are made. In the coming years, there will be much more of the former and much less of that latter. A lot of people were saying Barbie was snubbed at the Oscars. Robbie got snubbed for best actress, but Director is so stacked it's not even funny. But the 1.4 billion at the box office will probably have a longer lasting impact than any technical Oscars.
From a technical standpoint, it's amazing. The casting was perfect. Margot Robbie is the perfect "stereotypical Barbie." This is a Barbie that is both the perfect doll she is known as, and also the maturing Barbie who's seeking a purpose and to right her world. They could not have picked a better leading actress. Ryan Gosling is the perfect Ken. Even the characters created for this movie were perfectly cast, especially Will Farrell as the CEO of Mattel (it's my personal headcanon that he and President Business from the Lego Movie are the same person, also it's amazing Mattel was okay with this script). Note for anyone who didn't have Barbie in their childhoods: there is Barbie lore, and the movie does assume you know who the characters are.
You will never see a movie that looks like this again. Barbie enters a rare selection of movies that are instantly recognizable from a single screenshot. Barbieland looks exactly like a world made of Barbie dream houses. The bright pastel colors, the overload of pink, the way everything is shaped makes it a real life town of dollhouses, and it's highly impressive. It's made with such a real love for its source seldom seen in movies. Additionally, part of what makes the casting so good is the ability to make the actors look like dolls. The soundtrack perfectly befits the film. The two dance numbers (one for the Barbies, one for the Kens) are very well choreographed. Perhaps most importantly for fans and enthusiasts, there are several wardrobes worth of costumes for all the Barbies, based on different outfits she's worn over the years.
This is, as one would expect from Gerwig, also a film carrying strong feminist messaging. Some people were surprised by that upon release, although being surprised by a Greta Gerwig movie having feminist messaging is like being surprised that a Tarantino movie is violent. This is where things get complicated. On one hand, the messages appear to hit the audience with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, which some may deem necessary given the urgency of its subject matter. On the other hand, it's so over the top it's difficult to tell how seriously you're supposed to be taking it. It often feels like a satire of itself. There are times when it feels like a Mel Brooks movie. This is a problem because it muddies the message. You could very well watch this movie and come to the conclusion that it's supposed to be a satirical takedown of feminism, which is the last thing the filmmakers want you to do. And when it does spell it out, it can very easily come off as preachy. This is quite a conundrum, and highly ironic. I'm really not sure how a filmmaker would make this work.
Now, despite all exterior appearances, Barbie is a very nuanced film that has several layers to it, and does not provide all of the answers, nor does it need to. Now, while it is ultimately a feminist film, it does not shy away from addressing some things the movement is doing wrong and has done wrong in the past. No matter how it may look or seem on the outside, there's a whole world of ideas in its subtext. This is where the strength of its messages lies, not in the bluntness of its outer appearance. It does have some comic relief, which is mostly meta humor. Not my cup of tea, but if you like it then enjoy it. There are some references to movies like 2001 and The Matrix, which are funny.
This is a movie that's going to be a game changer for the industry. Between the success of Barbie and the failure of movies such as The Marvels, there is going to be a change in how blockbusters for women are made. In the coming years, there will be much more of the former and much less of that latter. A lot of people were saying Barbie was snubbed at the Oscars. Robbie got snubbed for best actress, but Director is so stacked it's not even funny. But the 1.4 billion at the box office will probably have a longer lasting impact than any technical Oscars.
Poor Things
(2023)
Weirdness Done Right
10 March 2024
Poor Things is a weird movie. That's to be expected given it's directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, a master of strange movies. There are two types of weirdness, though. There's weird for the sake of being weird, and then there's movies that can fully live within the confines of its own reality. Poor Things is the latter. Despite the utter insanity of what goes on on screen, it doesn't feel detached at all from the world it builds for itself. The premise is that in a steampunk Victorian London, Bella Baxter, who was raised in a lab, seeks to leave the lab and see the world beyond.
The acting is fantastic. Whether or not Emma Stone will win the Oscar for this remains to be seen, but she is certainly worthy of it. Bella Baxter is a character who changes quite a bit over the runtime of this film, and Stone manages to make her seem just as alive in all of them. Both as the childlike Frankenstein monster at the beginning and the firm young woman at the end are delivered with such sincerity. Mark Ruffalo is the supporting lead, and he's quite good as well. One cast member in particular who stands out is Willem Dafoe, who has really been on a roll with strange movies in the last few years.
From a technical standpoint, the movie is amazing. The most impressive thing about it other than the acting is the production and set design. Poor Things is one of those rare movies where any single shot from it is instantly identifiable. Several of the sets and shots are reminiscent of the early silent films, and their influence is clear, particularly in the black and white segments. It actually is reminiscent of, and not many movies can say this, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Not only does London look fantastic, each place Bella visits on her journey looks incredible, ranging from dreamlike to steampunk. Even aside from the sets, everything contributes to this weird world, and nothing is left untouched. The little things in the lab, like the hybrid animals or the... thing that Godwin uses when he eats, are quite memorable. Of particular note are the costumes and the music. The former is a unique set of costumes that befits the aesthetic of the world. The latter uses a variety of instruments for compositions that could only go with a movie like this.
If there's one thing Poor Things stumbles on, it's the message of the movie. There are several ideas that are cooked up - the idea of a woman finding her own place in the world, innocence and the innate goodness in people - but it's all undercooked. A lot of this feeling is owed to the fact that there is a metric crap-ton of sex and nudity in this movie. You're seeing quite a bit of Stone, Ruffalo, and some others in this one. While the sex is ultimately an important contributing factor (more than can be said for many movies), there's too much of it to the point where it feels like porn. Now, the idea of Bella emerging from the lab she was made in to see the whole of humanity is a good premise, and Stone's performance makes all of Bella's experiences feel legitimate, but there's no real substance to it other than that.
Poor Things is quite a memorable movie, with its bizarre Victorian world and fantastic acting, even if its ideas could have been delivered better.
The acting is fantastic. Whether or not Emma Stone will win the Oscar for this remains to be seen, but she is certainly worthy of it. Bella Baxter is a character who changes quite a bit over the runtime of this film, and Stone manages to make her seem just as alive in all of them. Both as the childlike Frankenstein monster at the beginning and the firm young woman at the end are delivered with such sincerity. Mark Ruffalo is the supporting lead, and he's quite good as well. One cast member in particular who stands out is Willem Dafoe, who has really been on a roll with strange movies in the last few years.
From a technical standpoint, the movie is amazing. The most impressive thing about it other than the acting is the production and set design. Poor Things is one of those rare movies where any single shot from it is instantly identifiable. Several of the sets and shots are reminiscent of the early silent films, and their influence is clear, particularly in the black and white segments. It actually is reminiscent of, and not many movies can say this, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Not only does London look fantastic, each place Bella visits on her journey looks incredible, ranging from dreamlike to steampunk. Even aside from the sets, everything contributes to this weird world, and nothing is left untouched. The little things in the lab, like the hybrid animals or the... thing that Godwin uses when he eats, are quite memorable. Of particular note are the costumes and the music. The former is a unique set of costumes that befits the aesthetic of the world. The latter uses a variety of instruments for compositions that could only go with a movie like this.
If there's one thing Poor Things stumbles on, it's the message of the movie. There are several ideas that are cooked up - the idea of a woman finding her own place in the world, innocence and the innate goodness in people - but it's all undercooked. A lot of this feeling is owed to the fact that there is a metric crap-ton of sex and nudity in this movie. You're seeing quite a bit of Stone, Ruffalo, and some others in this one. While the sex is ultimately an important contributing factor (more than can be said for many movies), there's too much of it to the point where it feels like porn. Now, the idea of Bella emerging from the lab she was made in to see the whole of humanity is a good premise, and Stone's performance makes all of Bella's experiences feel legitimate, but there's no real substance to it other than that.
Poor Things is quite a memorable movie, with its bizarre Victorian world and fantastic acting, even if its ideas could have been delivered better.
Anatomy of a Fall
(2023)
What is Truth?
9 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
Anatomy of a Fall is a movie that delivers strong story, characters, writing, all the things you would expect from a Palme d'Or winner. However, the true strength lies in the ideas of the movie, and how they are presented. This is a movie about truth, what it is and how it's determined. Author Sandra Voyter is implicated in the falling death of her husband, and she and her blind son Daniel must testify in court. It's not such much a whodunit as it is a court drama. It does keep you constantly guessing as to whether or not she is guilty, but that itself is not important as the exploration of how one can know the truth.
The acting is fantastic. The movie is led by a top-notch performance from Sandra Huller, whose performance is essential to her sense of guilt or lack thereof. The entire success of the movie hinges on this, and she pulls it off exceptionally well. Special mention should go to 15-year old Milo Machado-Graner, who plays Daniel (though he is not actually blind). The rest of the cast is solid as well, particularly Swann Arlaud as Vincent (Sanra's lawyer). One of the strongest elements is its screenplay, which is in both French and English. It must have been very meticulously designed to not allow any unconscious bias or extra hints at what actually happened. The cinematography is strong as well; a certain rawness to it where it very much feels like home video. The movie is, however, probably a little too long.
Spoilers beyond this point - it's not surprising that it ends ambiguously, without clearly stating whether or not she actually did it. It ties back to the whole idea of truth being the most important thing and yet so elusive. But the way the ending is written with Daniel skewing the case to the subjective idea of "his truth" was very well handled. Having a definitive answer would take away from the general idea.
The acting is fantastic. The movie is led by a top-notch performance from Sandra Huller, whose performance is essential to her sense of guilt or lack thereof. The entire success of the movie hinges on this, and she pulls it off exceptionally well. Special mention should go to 15-year old Milo Machado-Graner, who plays Daniel (though he is not actually blind). The rest of the cast is solid as well, particularly Swann Arlaud as Vincent (Sanra's lawyer). One of the strongest elements is its screenplay, which is in both French and English. It must have been very meticulously designed to not allow any unconscious bias or extra hints at what actually happened. The cinematography is strong as well; a certain rawness to it where it very much feels like home video. The movie is, however, probably a little too long.
Spoilers beyond this point - it's not surprising that it ends ambiguously, without clearly stating whether or not she actually did it. It ties back to the whole idea of truth being the most important thing and yet so elusive. But the way the ending is written with Daniel skewing the case to the subjective idea of "his truth" was very well handled. Having a definitive answer would take away from the general idea.
Oppenheimer
(I) (2023)
Masterpiece
8 March 2024
Oppenheimer is one of those rare films that manages to succeed in virtually every aspect. It's masterfully acted, it has an excellent screenplay, mind blowing effects, and it's a well-crafted nuanced view of an extremely complicated figure, J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb. It manages to captivate the audience over a 3-hour runtime that knows that every second counts. It's also the work of Christopher Nolan, one of the most respected directors in the world. This was a movie that demanded the big screen experience. While it is still an excellent movie if you watch it at home, the Trinity test was breathtaking in IMAX.
The cast and acting are fantastic. Cilian Murphy, a frequent Nolan collaborator, is in the lead role. He's excellent. The best scenes are the ones toward the end when the reality of what he's done has set in. The primary supporting cast, namely Robert Downey Jr, Emily Blunt, and Florence Pugh, are excellent. Downey in particular was worthy of the Oscar he will inevitably win. It was also nice to see him in a serious role, especially after all those years of playing Iron Man. Even the less important characters with a single minute of screen time are played by A-listers like Kenneth Branagh and Rami Malek. It's truly one of the best acting ensembles in recent memory.
From a technical standpoint, it's incredible in several different ways. The story is framed in a way in which constant shifts between different time periods tell a singular, continuous narrative, and it works. Uniquely, the "present" is in black and white and the past is in color. The editing is impeccable; seamlessly blending speakers and time periods. The score is excellent. While it's not Nolan's regular Hans Zimmer, it's similar. It's almost as much ambient noise as it is music, and it amplifies the intensity of the film. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about it is that there is no CGI in the movie at all. The massive explosion at Los Alamos is a practical effect. The scenes that visualize abstract scientific concepts are actual footage. They work so well because it makes these concepts, which paradoxically describe the mechanisms of how reality works but yet seem so disconnected from our world, seem very real. The Trinity test scene is incredible. Everything about that scene is perfect. The music, the sound, the way it's built up, and of course, the explosion itself. It's very hard to believe it's not CGI. The ending is powerful. I won't spoil it here.
In his lifetime and today, J. Robert Oppenheimer was a very controversial figure. The movie does not want us to like or dislike him, but rather to understand him. His political views landed him in hot water in the McCarthy era, something which serves as the background for the film. It doesn't judge him as right or wrong on that, it's just how it happened. His personal life was quite complicated. He was a known womanizer and adulterer, something the movie touches on but ultimately leaves underdeveloped. Given the runtime, some things will inevitably be left out but that doesn't excuse neglecting things they decided to keep.
One of the more controversial elements of the movie is that it does not actually show the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was handled well, as the lack of seeing it does not detract from the weight it leaves on Oppenheimer's shoulders. In the almost 80 years since the bombings, there has been much debate over whether dropping the bombs was a preferable alternative to an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The movie does not shy away from asking the question, but it doesn't take a side. This is the way to go. The moral of the story is not that Hiroshima and Nagasaki shouldn't have been bombed, it's a warning of what could happen in the future.
It's great that this movie did so well at the box office. $950 million for a three hour long science biopic/political drama, partially in black and white and very little action is one heck of a return. Granted, a lot of it is owed to the Barbenheimer phenomenon, and this movie is a considerably harder sell than Barbie, but the result is the same. This is a movie that will be remembered, and justly so. Not only is it one of Nolan's best, it is one of the greatest movies of the century so far.
The cast and acting are fantastic. Cilian Murphy, a frequent Nolan collaborator, is in the lead role. He's excellent. The best scenes are the ones toward the end when the reality of what he's done has set in. The primary supporting cast, namely Robert Downey Jr, Emily Blunt, and Florence Pugh, are excellent. Downey in particular was worthy of the Oscar he will inevitably win. It was also nice to see him in a serious role, especially after all those years of playing Iron Man. Even the less important characters with a single minute of screen time are played by A-listers like Kenneth Branagh and Rami Malek. It's truly one of the best acting ensembles in recent memory.
From a technical standpoint, it's incredible in several different ways. The story is framed in a way in which constant shifts between different time periods tell a singular, continuous narrative, and it works. Uniquely, the "present" is in black and white and the past is in color. The editing is impeccable; seamlessly blending speakers and time periods. The score is excellent. While it's not Nolan's regular Hans Zimmer, it's similar. It's almost as much ambient noise as it is music, and it amplifies the intensity of the film. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about it is that there is no CGI in the movie at all. The massive explosion at Los Alamos is a practical effect. The scenes that visualize abstract scientific concepts are actual footage. They work so well because it makes these concepts, which paradoxically describe the mechanisms of how reality works but yet seem so disconnected from our world, seem very real. The Trinity test scene is incredible. Everything about that scene is perfect. The music, the sound, the way it's built up, and of course, the explosion itself. It's very hard to believe it's not CGI. The ending is powerful. I won't spoil it here.
In his lifetime and today, J. Robert Oppenheimer was a very controversial figure. The movie does not want us to like or dislike him, but rather to understand him. His political views landed him in hot water in the McCarthy era, something which serves as the background for the film. It doesn't judge him as right or wrong on that, it's just how it happened. His personal life was quite complicated. He was a known womanizer and adulterer, something the movie touches on but ultimately leaves underdeveloped. Given the runtime, some things will inevitably be left out but that doesn't excuse neglecting things they decided to keep.
One of the more controversial elements of the movie is that it does not actually show the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was handled well, as the lack of seeing it does not detract from the weight it leaves on Oppenheimer's shoulders. In the almost 80 years since the bombings, there has been much debate over whether dropping the bombs was a preferable alternative to an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The movie does not shy away from asking the question, but it doesn't take a side. This is the way to go. The moral of the story is not that Hiroshima and Nagasaki shouldn't have been bombed, it's a warning of what could happen in the future.
It's great that this movie did so well at the box office. $950 million for a three hour long science biopic/political drama, partially in black and white and very little action is one heck of a return. Granted, a lot of it is owed to the Barbenheimer phenomenon, and this movie is a considerably harder sell than Barbie, but the result is the same. This is a movie that will be remembered, and justly so. Not only is it one of Nolan's best, it is one of the greatest movies of the century so far.
Past Lives
(2023)
A Very Vibey Movie
6 March 2024
Past Lives is what you call a "vibey" movie. It's a very understated romantic drama, perhaps even too understated. It has a certain quietness to it that's much more common in Asian films than it is in American ones. Much like its characters, it definitely holds on to its Korean roots. It follows two childhood friends, Nora, who moves to New York to become an author, and Hae Sung, as they reconnect years later. The lead performance by Greta Lee is quite good, especially given how toned down the whole movie is.
The story is a romance that's not particularly romantic. In a strange way, it's a romance devoid of love. That isn't necessarily a knock against it, more a comment on how it is. It's quite a lonely film. It's a quiet longing, a mellow nostalgia. These are backed by the score and cinematography, two of the film's finer aspects. Many of the shots are screensaver material, and the score adds to the intimacy. Each interior scene is intimate and familiar. It is lonely, but yet comfy. While this is mostly handled well, it does sometimes veer toward feeling rather mundane. Another drawback is that it's so minimalistic that it doesn't offer much room for the characters to fully develop, and they can be seen more as ideas or representations of ideas than fully developed people. It's a solid film. Especially impressive given it is the directorial debut of writer/director Celine Song.
The story is a romance that's not particularly romantic. In a strange way, it's a romance devoid of love. That isn't necessarily a knock against it, more a comment on how it is. It's quite a lonely film. It's a quiet longing, a mellow nostalgia. These are backed by the score and cinematography, two of the film's finer aspects. Many of the shots are screensaver material, and the score adds to the intimacy. Each interior scene is intimate and familiar. It is lonely, but yet comfy. While this is mostly handled well, it does sometimes veer toward feeling rather mundane. Another drawback is that it's so minimalistic that it doesn't offer much room for the characters to fully develop, and they can be seen more as ideas or representations of ideas than fully developed people. It's a solid film. Especially impressive given it is the directorial debut of writer/director Celine Song.
The Zone of Interest
(2023)
Minimalism is Key
5 March 2024
The Holocaust is a difficult thing to deal with in any medium, film included. The Zone of Interest is something rather rare, a movie about the Holocaust from the Nazi perspective. That's not to say it takes their side, it very much does the opposite. This is a movie about one man who was instrumental in the daily functioning of the death machine; Rudolph Hoss, commandant of Auschwitz, and his family as they work to create a home for themselves adjacent to the Auschwitz concentration camp. In simplest terms, this is the day to day lives of the people responsible for the atrocities.
Minimalism is key here - there is very little dialogue, very little music, and the interior of the camp does not appear at all in the main story. Irrespective of what it provokes in audiences, there is very little emotion portrayed. There isn't even that much of a story, even in its fairly short runtime. It also has a certain claustrophobic rigidity. You can count on one hand the number of times the camera moves. While this is a movie with a strong message, it is not explicitly delivered or spelled out at all. Deciphering this film is closer to analyzing a painting than a more standard movie. It can be quite daunting.
Ultimately, The Zone of Interest is about two things - normalization and detachment. Popular culture, back then and now, oftentimes depicts Nazis as these sort of cartoonish, comic book-esque villains. This is a film that reminds us that they were no less human than you or I. They had the same worries that many of us have - family drama, job promotion, etc. That's not to say it's trying to make excuses or anything - they know exactly what's going on. The disturbing elements of the movie are no so much as the gunshots and crematoriums in the background, but the normalcy with which it is treated.
There are also several surreal sequences in this movie, and their meaning is particularly difficult to discern. For instance, the scene where the entire screen turns red. The movie opens with a solid minute of a blank, black screen. Some scenes are filmed in negative. These are kind of a deterrent, in a way not. They do break up the monotony, but the monotony is the point of the movie. The ending of the movie is... disturbing, to say the least. It feels like a horror movie scene with an inevitable jumpscare that doesn't come.
The Zone of Interest is a unique film, that's for certain. Your mileage may vary. If you know what you're getting in to, then you may find some appreciation for this unusual vision.
Minimalism is key here - there is very little dialogue, very little music, and the interior of the camp does not appear at all in the main story. Irrespective of what it provokes in audiences, there is very little emotion portrayed. There isn't even that much of a story, even in its fairly short runtime. It also has a certain claustrophobic rigidity. You can count on one hand the number of times the camera moves. While this is a movie with a strong message, it is not explicitly delivered or spelled out at all. Deciphering this film is closer to analyzing a painting than a more standard movie. It can be quite daunting.
Ultimately, The Zone of Interest is about two things - normalization and detachment. Popular culture, back then and now, oftentimes depicts Nazis as these sort of cartoonish, comic book-esque villains. This is a film that reminds us that they were no less human than you or I. They had the same worries that many of us have - family drama, job promotion, etc. That's not to say it's trying to make excuses or anything - they know exactly what's going on. The disturbing elements of the movie are no so much as the gunshots and crematoriums in the background, but the normalcy with which it is treated.
There are also several surreal sequences in this movie, and their meaning is particularly difficult to discern. For instance, the scene where the entire screen turns red. The movie opens with a solid minute of a blank, black screen. Some scenes are filmed in negative. These are kind of a deterrent, in a way not. They do break up the monotony, but the monotony is the point of the movie. The ending of the movie is... disturbing, to say the least. It feels like a horror movie scene with an inevitable jumpscare that doesn't come.
The Zone of Interest is a unique film, that's for certain. Your mileage may vary. If you know what you're getting in to, then you may find some appreciation for this unusual vision.
Maestro
(2023)
I wanted to love it
4 March 2024
I really wanted to love this movie. It's a biopic on Leonard Bernstein - one of the most beloved musicians of the last century. It's backed by solid performances from Bradley Cooper and Carey Mulligan. The production values are very high. There's just one thing that's glaringly absent from a movie about a composer - the music. Sure, there's a nice selection that serves as background music, but it misses the point. Bernstein talks a lot in this movie about the music and how it drives him, but you don't see nearly enough of how it drives him. The movie is solely about Bernstein's complicated relationship with his wife Felicia Montelegre. If you've never heard of Leonard Bernstein before watching this movie, you will be left with no real idea of his accomplishments as a composer and what they meant. You won't know anything about the many controversies surrounding his works, and the social statements that many of them featured. If you are versed in Bernstein, then you will be looking for the music and its influence in addition to the relationship.
Now, I do see what they were going for with this movie. Bernstein was quite a complicated figure, as all great minds are. And he did have a series of affairs, including affairs with men. This is true, and he's far from alone among great minds in those regards. That just can't be the entirety of the movie. Even still, not much of Bernstein's character is presented beyond the affairs. It's like the movie can't pick a lane on how dramatic it wants to be. Think of all the music biopics out there. Are there any that completely do away with the music like this? There are glimpses of that love for music present in the movie. The scene where he's conducting the Mass at Ely Cathedral, one of his most notable performances, was excellently done. That is what we want to see.
There are things to like about Maestro. The leading performances by Bradley Cooper and Carey Mulligan are very good, particularly Mulligan. The costume and production design are solid. The music selection, while it should have a greater focus, is a very nice selection, a Bernstein highlight reel. And, as mentioned, there are scenes in which the passion for music shines through. It's just not enough. This was a cruelly disappointing movie, one that had so much potential to live up to.
Now, I do see what they were going for with this movie. Bernstein was quite a complicated figure, as all great minds are. And he did have a series of affairs, including affairs with men. This is true, and he's far from alone among great minds in those regards. That just can't be the entirety of the movie. Even still, not much of Bernstein's character is presented beyond the affairs. It's like the movie can't pick a lane on how dramatic it wants to be. Think of all the music biopics out there. Are there any that completely do away with the music like this? There are glimpses of that love for music present in the movie. The scene where he's conducting the Mass at Ely Cathedral, one of his most notable performances, was excellently done. That is what we want to see.
There are things to like about Maestro. The leading performances by Bradley Cooper and Carey Mulligan are very good, particularly Mulligan. The costume and production design are solid. The music selection, while it should have a greater focus, is a very nice selection, a Bernstein highlight reel. And, as mentioned, there are scenes in which the passion for music shines through. It's just not enough. This was a cruelly disappointing movie, one that had so much potential to live up to.
American Fiction
(2023)
More than a Token
3 March 2024
American Fiction is a difficult film to analyze. It's a movie that has layers to it, and a very clear message with real nuance to it. It centers on author Thelonius "Monk"' Ellison (not to be confused with Thelonius Monk the real-life jazz musician, I'm not sure why they gave him that name), an African American author who seeks to change the way books by black authors are perceived. After his work is rejected for not being "black" enough, he anonymously authors an extremely over the top satire that becomes a smash hit.
American Fiction's strongest attribute is its screenplay. The film is primarily a satire, and it is a successful one at that. The extent to which the critics, executives, etc. Are out of touch is perfectly over the top. It often seems like Monk is the only sane person in the world. Another one of the movie's strengths is how it manages to convey its messages both in a satirical form, and in its more serious moments. There is a masterful balance between the two, and the humor does not detract from its serious scenes either. The movie is backed by strong performances from its star, Jeffrey Wright and the supporting cast, most notably Sterling K Brown as the comic relief. Wright is on top of his game in this movie.
There is a certain irony to this movie getting nominated for Best Picture, as well as its success at Toronto. The film is primarily satirizing (well intentioned) white progressives who are happy to bend over backwards for the sake of diversity, unaware of how they are reinforcing negative stereotypes. You know, the type of people who fawn over Oscar bait movies like some may see this as? This is difficult because American Fiction is a worthy film in and of itself, but there is the potential to see that the nominations go against the message of the movie. It's also worth noting that it's the only black-led movie nominated this year, which from an outside perspective may make it look like the "token black movie." In a strange way, this movie might have been most successful becoming a cult classic. Nominations or not, it's still a movie worth watching.
American Fiction's strongest attribute is its screenplay. The film is primarily a satire, and it is a successful one at that. The extent to which the critics, executives, etc. Are out of touch is perfectly over the top. It often seems like Monk is the only sane person in the world. Another one of the movie's strengths is how it manages to convey its messages both in a satirical form, and in its more serious moments. There is a masterful balance between the two, and the humor does not detract from its serious scenes either. The movie is backed by strong performances from its star, Jeffrey Wright and the supporting cast, most notably Sterling K Brown as the comic relief. Wright is on top of his game in this movie.
There is a certain irony to this movie getting nominated for Best Picture, as well as its success at Toronto. The film is primarily satirizing (well intentioned) white progressives who are happy to bend over backwards for the sake of diversity, unaware of how they are reinforcing negative stereotypes. You know, the type of people who fawn over Oscar bait movies like some may see this as? This is difficult because American Fiction is a worthy film in and of itself, but there is the potential to see that the nominations go against the message of the movie. It's also worth noting that it's the only black-led movie nominated this year, which from an outside perspective may make it look like the "token black movie." In a strange way, this movie might have been most successful becoming a cult classic. Nominations or not, it's still a movie worth watching.
Killers of the Flower Moon
(2023)
A good movie, but too long
2 March 2024
For as much as Killers of the Flower Moon is new territory for Martin Scorsese, it is also something new. Flower Moon seems to combine Scorsese's longtime interest in the corrupt underbelly of American society (Wolf of Wall Street, The Irishman, etc.), which also considering his more recent interest in the clashes between Western culture and others (Silence). It is also Scorsese's entrance to the Western genre. In this movie, a group of settlers conspire to rob the Osage Native American tribe of their oil and land, which has made them very wealthy. This was one of the cases that led to the founding of the FBI. Westerns have changed over the years. The romanticism of the Wild West has been supplanted by moral dilemmas. Flower Moon falls solely in the latter, as one may expect.
This movie is also notable as it stars Scorsese's two most frequent collaborators, Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert de Niro, together under Scorsese's direction for the first time. Leo was alright in this movie. He plays Ernest Burkhart, who seems conflicted between actual love for Mollie, an Osage woman. Compared to his performances in other Scorsese movies like Shutter Island and Wolf of Wall Street, this one was rather lacking. Robert de Niro was quite good in his role as William Hale, the ringleader. Despite his actions and true intentions he gives the vibe of a caring grandfather figure. However, if there's one standout performance, it's that of Lily Gladstone. She plays the role of Mollie, an Osage woman who marries Ernest and progressively loses her family to the conspiracy. It's very difficult to portray a person completely bereft without falling into dull underacting, and that's precisely what she avoids here. Mollie represents the last stand of the Osage values and the refusal to give in to a decadent lifestyle, and it is masterfully portrayed by Gladstone.
The production itself is quite impressive. The whole town looks very authentic. Everything from the costumes to the decor of any interior to the vintage cars makes the movie very immersive. Without going into story details, the explosion in the movie is an actual explosion, which is very impressive. The way the film ends, while it may not have tonally fit it, was a unique showcase of an antiquated form of entertainment.
One thing must be addressed: the runtime. It's over three and a half hours long. It's Scorsese's longest movie, beating out his second most recent, The Irishman. There are some movies where you don't feel the runtime; this isn't one of them. This movie may have been better as a miniseries. That would have given it more time to fully develop more characters, and distribute time more evenly. The Irishman at least has the benefit of a much faster pace, and a focus solely devoted to one main character. With Flower Moon, it's good content, but when it moves at a slower pace and shifts focus, it's easy to lose focus.
Ultimately, Killers of the Flower Moon is far from Scorsese's best work, which isn't saying much given the excellence of his repertoire. It is worth a watch, although perhaps in pieces rather than one go.
This movie is also notable as it stars Scorsese's two most frequent collaborators, Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert de Niro, together under Scorsese's direction for the first time. Leo was alright in this movie. He plays Ernest Burkhart, who seems conflicted between actual love for Mollie, an Osage woman. Compared to his performances in other Scorsese movies like Shutter Island and Wolf of Wall Street, this one was rather lacking. Robert de Niro was quite good in his role as William Hale, the ringleader. Despite his actions and true intentions he gives the vibe of a caring grandfather figure. However, if there's one standout performance, it's that of Lily Gladstone. She plays the role of Mollie, an Osage woman who marries Ernest and progressively loses her family to the conspiracy. It's very difficult to portray a person completely bereft without falling into dull underacting, and that's precisely what she avoids here. Mollie represents the last stand of the Osage values and the refusal to give in to a decadent lifestyle, and it is masterfully portrayed by Gladstone.
The production itself is quite impressive. The whole town looks very authentic. Everything from the costumes to the decor of any interior to the vintage cars makes the movie very immersive. Without going into story details, the explosion in the movie is an actual explosion, which is very impressive. The way the film ends, while it may not have tonally fit it, was a unique showcase of an antiquated form of entertainment.
One thing must be addressed: the runtime. It's over three and a half hours long. It's Scorsese's longest movie, beating out his second most recent, The Irishman. There are some movies where you don't feel the runtime; this isn't one of them. This movie may have been better as a miniseries. That would have given it more time to fully develop more characters, and distribute time more evenly. The Irishman at least has the benefit of a much faster pace, and a focus solely devoted to one main character. With Flower Moon, it's good content, but when it moves at a slower pace and shifts focus, it's easy to lose focus.
Ultimately, Killers of the Flower Moon is far from Scorsese's best work, which isn't saying much given the excellence of his repertoire. It is worth a watch, although perhaps in pieces rather than one go.
The Holdovers
(2023)
Best Movie of 2023
1 March 2024
The Holdvers is a film that strikes a perfect balance. It's a hilarious tale of mischief and a poignant reflection on loss. It's a product of the time period it's set in and relatable today. It's a Christmas movie but it's relevant year-round. It's rated R but you can watch it with your family. This is the type of movie that easily could have been some campy, sappy b-movie that tugs on your heartstrings. The premise of three people - a detested professor, a struggling student, and the school's cook - being left behind at an upscale New England boarding school at Christmas is something that could easily be a Hallmark movie. At the end of the movie, without giving too much away, everyone gets what is right for them, whether it's a happy ending or not. That's one of the best things about Holdovers. It really is a Hallmark movie that's actually very, very good.
The acting in this movie is stellar. Paul Giamatti is in the lead role as Paul Hunhum, the professor. This was the performance of a lifetime. He fit into the role quite naturally. The young student, Angus, is played by Dominic Sessa in his first ever movie role. The third member of the cast is De'Vine Joy Randolph, who is exceptional in her role as Mary, the school's head of cafeteria. While she could have had a bit more screen time, her performance was completely believable. The bonds formed between each part of this unlikely trio are delightful. Not only is the acting fantastic, the screenplay is excellent as well. It's an essential part of the aforementioned balance, and it masters both the humorous and emotional scenes.
One of the unique elements of The Holdovers is how it's made to look as though it were made in 1970, the year in which it is set. The grainy footage, the general cinematography, the music selection, the credits and studio logos gave a real sense of authenticity. Not only does it look and sound like a 1970s movie, it also narratively resembles a film from that time rather than one being made today. Watching this movie in theaters did not feel like watching a brand new movie, it felt like watching a rerelease of an underappreciated classic. Perhaps at some point it will have its place in the canon of Christmas classics watched and loved every year.
This was my favorite movie of 2023, and my personal pick for Best Picture.
The acting in this movie is stellar. Paul Giamatti is in the lead role as Paul Hunhum, the professor. This was the performance of a lifetime. He fit into the role quite naturally. The young student, Angus, is played by Dominic Sessa in his first ever movie role. The third member of the cast is De'Vine Joy Randolph, who is exceptional in her role as Mary, the school's head of cafeteria. While she could have had a bit more screen time, her performance was completely believable. The bonds formed between each part of this unlikely trio are delightful. Not only is the acting fantastic, the screenplay is excellent as well. It's an essential part of the aforementioned balance, and it masters both the humorous and emotional scenes.
One of the unique elements of The Holdovers is how it's made to look as though it were made in 1970, the year in which it is set. The grainy footage, the general cinematography, the music selection, the credits and studio logos gave a real sense of authenticity. Not only does it look and sound like a 1970s movie, it also narratively resembles a film from that time rather than one being made today. Watching this movie in theaters did not feel like watching a brand new movie, it felt like watching a rerelease of an underappreciated classic. Perhaps at some point it will have its place in the canon of Christmas classics watched and loved every year.
This was my favorite movie of 2023, and my personal pick for Best Picture.
Werewolf by Night
(2022 TV Movie)
Great Homage to Classic Horror
31 October 2023
Werewolf by Night was an unexpected addition to the Marvel canon, and a welcome one at that. It was directed by Michael Giacchino, an Oscar winning composer making his directorial debut. He also composes the special's score, and it's some of his best work. Giacchino's love of classic monster movies is evident throughout the film, especially at the beginning. It has 1930s/40s title cards at the beginning, and the music is very reminiscent of the classic horror films. Perhaps the best homage is the use of practical effects rather than CGI, which the monsters movies back then exemplified. There are some downsides. The classic effect does begin to wear off after a while, and then it will feel like you're watching a Marvel movie with a black and white filter. The writing was okay. There's still cringeworthy Marvel humor. But given how cookie cutter Marvel movies have become, something as unique as Werewolf by Night is a more than welcome addition to the MCU canon.
Raya and the Last Dragon
(2021)
Good, not great
31 August 2023
Raya and the Last Dragon continues Disney's recent trend of expanding to more global stories, in this case moving to a fantasy world inspired by the mythology of Southeast Asia. The world in which this film is set looks incredible and displays Disney's top-tier animation at its best. Each of the five worlds the movie is set in has its own uniqueness and works with each other to create this interesting world. This is the film's greatest strength. Its southeast Asian inspiration is clear and the world it's set in is beautiful.
The story is good, not great. Not only is it predictable by kid's movie standards, but it really falls to the wayside at the expense of worldbuilding. While the worldbuilding is one of the movie's biggest strengths, it takes a toll. The movie still needs a story, no matter how good the world looks.
Sisu, the titular last dragon, is played by Awkwafina, who is essentially playing herself. While that does work in most of her other movies, be it The Farewell, Shang-Chi, or anything else, it doesn't work here. In Raya, she's more annoying than anything else. The reason is because in her other movies, her characters are like how she would react if she was in that situation. Here, Sisu feels like a modern person in the role of a fantasy character. Compare that to Shang-Chi, where she plays the opposite role and it works.
Raya, all things considered, is a mid-tier Disney movie. This will not end up being regarded as a classic in the future, but it will still have its place for some people. It's still better than your standard contemporary family fare, even if it doesn't live up to Disney's high standards.
The story is good, not great. Not only is it predictable by kid's movie standards, but it really falls to the wayside at the expense of worldbuilding. While the worldbuilding is one of the movie's biggest strengths, it takes a toll. The movie still needs a story, no matter how good the world looks.
Sisu, the titular last dragon, is played by Awkwafina, who is essentially playing herself. While that does work in most of her other movies, be it The Farewell, Shang-Chi, or anything else, it doesn't work here. In Raya, she's more annoying than anything else. The reason is because in her other movies, her characters are like how she would react if she was in that situation. Here, Sisu feels like a modern person in the role of a fantasy character. Compare that to Shang-Chi, where she plays the opposite role and it works.
Raya, all things considered, is a mid-tier Disney movie. This will not end up being regarded as a classic in the future, but it will still have its place for some people. It's still better than your standard contemporary family fare, even if it doesn't live up to Disney's high standards.
A Good Time
23 June 2023
Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves is the epitome of a fun time. There's no nutritional value here, just sword and sorcery. It doesn't try to be Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones, but it still fully embraces the high fantasy setting. There is a delicate balance between taking itself and its stakes seriously and being funny, which it successfully does. Virtually every action/adventure movie of this era will be filled with jokes or gags, but this is a rare example of that actually working to its potential. This is a movie that is more about the world it's set in than it is about its story. The characters are largely nothing special in and of themselves, but the chemistry between them makes it worth it. The villain was pretty lame, though. At least she looked cool. Speaking of looks, the visual effects were quite good as well. All of the various environments looked distinct and polished.
The movie is open to both fans and non-fans of Dungeons and Dragons. It's not seeped in deep lore that you need to understand, but there's enough present that fans can identify species, spells, and objects. The downside of that is that there's not enough that makes this distinctly a Dungeons and Dragons movie. Pixar's Onward, for instance, also borrowed a lot from D&D. If you changed some of the names in Honor Among Thieves, you could slap any title on the movie and it would pass. Some may say that the story is somewhat discombobulated, but that's the point. If you sit down for a D&D session with your friends, are you going to have a coherent story?
Dungeons and Dragons isn't the type of movie that will crack top 10 lists, but it's a truly fun time at the movies, something that has been severely lacking in this day and age.
The movie is open to both fans and non-fans of Dungeons and Dragons. It's not seeped in deep lore that you need to understand, but there's enough present that fans can identify species, spells, and objects. The downside of that is that there's not enough that makes this distinctly a Dungeons and Dragons movie. Pixar's Onward, for instance, also borrowed a lot from D&D. If you changed some of the names in Honor Among Thieves, you could slap any title on the movie and it would pass. Some may say that the story is somewhat discombobulated, but that's the point. If you sit down for a D&D session with your friends, are you going to have a coherent story?
Dungeons and Dragons isn't the type of movie that will crack top 10 lists, but it's a truly fun time at the movies, something that has been severely lacking in this day and age.
The Super Mario Bros. Movie
(2023)
One for the Fans
30 May 2023
This is a movie that is 100% made by fans, for fans. It may seem difficult to take something as simple as Mario and make a movie out of it, but Nintendo and Illumination proved to be a worthy partnership. The two have quite a bit in common. Both are leaders in family friendly content, they both have simple stories, and their products are very energetic and colorful. That being said, the animation is very well done. The Illumination style fits the world of the Mushroom Kingdom perfectly.
There's not much in the way of story: Mario and Luigi get sucked into the Mushroom Kingdom, and have to help Peach stop Bowser from taking over the world. That being said, I understand why critics didn't like it. It has a very basic and predictable story. But in this case, that is for the better. The games themselves aren't known for their plots, they are famously simple. But at the end of the day, it's not about the story, it's about the world of Mario. There's no need to make some kind of new world-building for something that already works as simple as it is. Instead it goes all on the references. Characters, items, locations, and especially music from across the franchise are prominently featured. It's an amalgamation of everyone's favorite Mario games, none of them (except Sunshine, sorry 00s kids) are left out. There's also a host of references to other video games, particularly retro ones. Spotting them feels rather good. This is the type of movie you need sometimes. There's no nutritional value here, it's just a fun time, just like the games are.
The voice cast was mocked upon reveal, but it wasn't too bad. Chris Pratt is the voice of Mario, and was better than expected. Rather than try and sound Italian, he goes for a Brooklyn accent, and he doesn't sound like Star-Lord or Jurassic World guy at all. Anya Taylor Joy was a good pick for Peach. She's really been on a roll lately. Did you know she's from Argentina? If there's one standout performance, it's that of Jack Black. Not only is he a huge nerd in real life, it's very clear that there is nothing he'd rather be doing than being the voice of Bowser. There is an issue with the voice acting; Mario is effectively a silent protagonist in the games - he only speaks in occasional catchphrases. The backstory they gave him and Luigi is serviceable. It's nothing remarkable, but also nothing that radically changes anything.
There are interesting implications to the enormous box office success of the Mario Movie. Combined with the laud received by HBO's The Last of Us, and the recent Sonic, Uncharted, and Mortal Kombat movies being moderate box office successes, we could be entering the golden age of video game adaptations. While Mario does have 40 years of cross-generational appeal, the numbers speak for themselves. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
There's not much in the way of story: Mario and Luigi get sucked into the Mushroom Kingdom, and have to help Peach stop Bowser from taking over the world. That being said, I understand why critics didn't like it. It has a very basic and predictable story. But in this case, that is for the better. The games themselves aren't known for their plots, they are famously simple. But at the end of the day, it's not about the story, it's about the world of Mario. There's no need to make some kind of new world-building for something that already works as simple as it is. Instead it goes all on the references. Characters, items, locations, and especially music from across the franchise are prominently featured. It's an amalgamation of everyone's favorite Mario games, none of them (except Sunshine, sorry 00s kids) are left out. There's also a host of references to other video games, particularly retro ones. Spotting them feels rather good. This is the type of movie you need sometimes. There's no nutritional value here, it's just a fun time, just like the games are.
The voice cast was mocked upon reveal, but it wasn't too bad. Chris Pratt is the voice of Mario, and was better than expected. Rather than try and sound Italian, he goes for a Brooklyn accent, and he doesn't sound like Star-Lord or Jurassic World guy at all. Anya Taylor Joy was a good pick for Peach. She's really been on a roll lately. Did you know she's from Argentina? If there's one standout performance, it's that of Jack Black. Not only is he a huge nerd in real life, it's very clear that there is nothing he'd rather be doing than being the voice of Bowser. There is an issue with the voice acting; Mario is effectively a silent protagonist in the games - he only speaks in occasional catchphrases. The backstory they gave him and Luigi is serviceable. It's nothing remarkable, but also nothing that radically changes anything.
There are interesting implications to the enormous box office success of the Mario Movie. Combined with the laud received by HBO's The Last of Us, and the recent Sonic, Uncharted, and Mortal Kombat movies being moderate box office successes, we could be entering the golden age of video game adaptations. While Mario does have 40 years of cross-generational appeal, the numbers speak for themselves. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
Silence
(I) (2016)
Highly Underrated
8 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Silence, for Martin Scorsese, is familiar territory, no matter how different it may seem from his other films. It is his third film that deals with the inner turmoil of religious figures, following The Last Temptation of Christ and Kundun. In 17th-century Japan, Jesuit missionaries Father Rodrigues and Father Garupe are sent to both serve the Japanese Christian community at a time when being a Christian is a capital offense, and to recover Father Ferreira, who has renounced his faith. Silence is a classic Scorsese downfall story, although it's much more like Last Temptation than Goodfellas in this regard. It's an endurance round of horrors for Rodrigues, who sees his people drowned, burned alive, crucified and beheaded, all intended to break his faith until it ultimately does.
One of the best things about Silence is that it stands out in an age when Christian movies are defined by sappiness, excessive preachiness, oversimplicity, and quite frankly not being very good. This is a movie that demonstrates the challenge that faith should be. Was it easy for the Apostles? For any of the many martyrs throughout history? Is it easy for the Christians in China and parts of the Middle East today who need to worship in secret for fear of getting arrested or killed? It's easy to get caught up with living in a first world country where you can go to church and worship without fearing for your life. Too many Christian movies have protagonists for whom everything goes right, and the movies always have a conclusive, happy ending. Silence is the antithesis of that. Father Rodrigues is arrogant, prideful, plagued by doubt, and virtually everything goes wrong for him. He is a sinner. He is much more like St. Peter (whose denial is alluded to multiple times) than Christ. And yet, through his own failure a more proper path is apparent. It is also interesting that at the beginning of the movie Father Garupe is considered the weaker of them, and yet he's the one who holds firm to the point of death.
One of the main aspects of the movie, and one that is handled quite well here, is the idea of cultural compatibility. Once Rodrigues finally meets Ferreira, the latter says he apostatized because the Japanese people cannot comprehend Christianity in any depth, having only a surface level understanding. This is something so complicated, that the best thing a filmmaker can do is leave it open for interpretation, which is exactly what Silence does. One could very well argue that Rodrigues ultimately did the right thing, or that he did not. There are no clear cut answers, which doesn't always work in film, but it certainly does here.
The title certainly isn't lying, despite the intensity of the subject matter. It's a very slow-paced and quiet film, forming a stark contrast with the turmoil both inside and out. Having it as a slow burn gives time for contemplation, as there is quite a lot going on in the movie. The shots of the natural landscape make great use of the Taiwanese filming location, which is stunningly beautiful. It's a very high quality production; everything from the built environments, the costume design, and makeup/hairstyling are of top quality. The cast is excellent as well. Andrew Garfield leads as Rodrigues, Adam Driver is alongside him as Garupe. Liam Neeson is Ferreira. All three of the leading trio are excellent. It's the Japanese actors who really steal the show, particularly Yosuke Kubozuka as Kichijiro.
The climax and the ending are unforgettable, and also quite conflicting. This would be the scene toward the end where the voice of Jesus tells Rodrigues to apostatize. On one hand, this may seem to blatantly contradict the ancient idea of the holiness of martyrdom, exemplified not only by Christ himself, but also by the Apostles and a multitude of martyrs throughout the ages. On the other hand, one thing Scorsese specializes in is scenes in which there is a very thin line between what is and is not literally happening. The best example of this is the ending of Taxi Driver. In the case of Silence, it is not firmly established that the voice Rodrigues hears is literally Jesus. This is another instance of ambiguity working to the film's benefit. Some say the voice is Jesus, others say it's the devil, some say it's Rodrigues' subconscious. A case can be made for any of them, and it can have a whole different interpretation depending on whose voice it is. The movie's final shot will stick with you for the rest of your life. A scene in which the camera zooms in on one object with virtually no sound turns out to be perhaps the most powerful single shot in this legendary filmmaker's career.
Silence is quite possibly the most underrated film in Martin Scorsese's epic repertoire. It was both a box-office bomb and a big awards snub, which is unfortunate. It's not an easy film, but it's definitely worth watching. It is more than a welcome addition to the Scorsese filmography.
One of the best things about Silence is that it stands out in an age when Christian movies are defined by sappiness, excessive preachiness, oversimplicity, and quite frankly not being very good. This is a movie that demonstrates the challenge that faith should be. Was it easy for the Apostles? For any of the many martyrs throughout history? Is it easy for the Christians in China and parts of the Middle East today who need to worship in secret for fear of getting arrested or killed? It's easy to get caught up with living in a first world country where you can go to church and worship without fearing for your life. Too many Christian movies have protagonists for whom everything goes right, and the movies always have a conclusive, happy ending. Silence is the antithesis of that. Father Rodrigues is arrogant, prideful, plagued by doubt, and virtually everything goes wrong for him. He is a sinner. He is much more like St. Peter (whose denial is alluded to multiple times) than Christ. And yet, through his own failure a more proper path is apparent. It is also interesting that at the beginning of the movie Father Garupe is considered the weaker of them, and yet he's the one who holds firm to the point of death.
One of the main aspects of the movie, and one that is handled quite well here, is the idea of cultural compatibility. Once Rodrigues finally meets Ferreira, the latter says he apostatized because the Japanese people cannot comprehend Christianity in any depth, having only a surface level understanding. This is something so complicated, that the best thing a filmmaker can do is leave it open for interpretation, which is exactly what Silence does. One could very well argue that Rodrigues ultimately did the right thing, or that he did not. There are no clear cut answers, which doesn't always work in film, but it certainly does here.
The title certainly isn't lying, despite the intensity of the subject matter. It's a very slow-paced and quiet film, forming a stark contrast with the turmoil both inside and out. Having it as a slow burn gives time for contemplation, as there is quite a lot going on in the movie. The shots of the natural landscape make great use of the Taiwanese filming location, which is stunningly beautiful. It's a very high quality production; everything from the built environments, the costume design, and makeup/hairstyling are of top quality. The cast is excellent as well. Andrew Garfield leads as Rodrigues, Adam Driver is alongside him as Garupe. Liam Neeson is Ferreira. All three of the leading trio are excellent. It's the Japanese actors who really steal the show, particularly Yosuke Kubozuka as Kichijiro.
The climax and the ending are unforgettable, and also quite conflicting. This would be the scene toward the end where the voice of Jesus tells Rodrigues to apostatize. On one hand, this may seem to blatantly contradict the ancient idea of the holiness of martyrdom, exemplified not only by Christ himself, but also by the Apostles and a multitude of martyrs throughout the ages. On the other hand, one thing Scorsese specializes in is scenes in which there is a very thin line between what is and is not literally happening. The best example of this is the ending of Taxi Driver. In the case of Silence, it is not firmly established that the voice Rodrigues hears is literally Jesus. This is another instance of ambiguity working to the film's benefit. Some say the voice is Jesus, others say it's the devil, some say it's Rodrigues' subconscious. A case can be made for any of them, and it can have a whole different interpretation depending on whose voice it is. The movie's final shot will stick with you for the rest of your life. A scene in which the camera zooms in on one object with virtually no sound turns out to be perhaps the most powerful single shot in this legendary filmmaker's career.
Silence is quite possibly the most underrated film in Martin Scorsese's epic repertoire. It was both a box-office bomb and a big awards snub, which is unfortunate. It's not an easy film, but it's definitely worth watching. It is more than a welcome addition to the Scorsese filmography.
Worst MCU Movie
6 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
While the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been running since 2008, it does at times need to be refreshed through the beginning of new phases. If this is what the new Marvel is going to look like, then they're in deep trouble. Ant-Man and the Wasp is probably the worst movie in the MCU canon. Previously, the worst Marvel movies weren't bad movies per se, they were just mediocre or forgettable. Quantumania, on the other hand, is a bad movie.
A lot of the complaints with this movie are that it doubles down on things that people have complained about with previous MCU movies. The CGI has just gotten lazy. Almost every environment in the movie looks super generic, as if it could be part of any Marvel movie. M. O. D. O. K is the worst thing ever. He is the most uncanny valley abomination in a major motion picture in decades. Granted, he does look like he does in the comics, but at least in the comics, he looks humanoid, rather than fully human. Semi-human characters have worked in the MCU before, but this was a huge mistake. The Marvel humor remains unchanged. Luis not being in it is disappointing. Nothing much really happens in this movie, it's a stepping stone to build Phase 5 on. It doesn't help that the metaphysics of the multiverse were introduced in Loki. Bill Murray has a minor role, which was really pointless, both to have the character in the movie and to cast an A-lister in the role.
If there is one thing to really like about this movie, it's Kang the Conqueror. Kang is the new Thanos, so expectations for him are going to be very high. He's awesome. Intimidating, well acted, sadistic, and unquestionably evil, this is the type of villain they can really build on. While he did appear in Loki, you don't need to see that show to understand this movie (unlike Doctor Strange 2), which is very good. The problem with Kang is that he ultimately gets defeated by ants and gets into a fistfight with Scott Lang that ends in a draw. It delegitimizes him before he gets his chance to shine. Honestly, they should've just made a Kang movie instead of making this Ant-Man 3. Ant-Man himself isn't even the main character, maybe not even top 3 in the movie.
This is the worst MCU movie. Marvel needs a course correction, or else they're in really big trouble.
A lot of the complaints with this movie are that it doubles down on things that people have complained about with previous MCU movies. The CGI has just gotten lazy. Almost every environment in the movie looks super generic, as if it could be part of any Marvel movie. M. O. D. O. K is the worst thing ever. He is the most uncanny valley abomination in a major motion picture in decades. Granted, he does look like he does in the comics, but at least in the comics, he looks humanoid, rather than fully human. Semi-human characters have worked in the MCU before, but this was a huge mistake. The Marvel humor remains unchanged. Luis not being in it is disappointing. Nothing much really happens in this movie, it's a stepping stone to build Phase 5 on. It doesn't help that the metaphysics of the multiverse were introduced in Loki. Bill Murray has a minor role, which was really pointless, both to have the character in the movie and to cast an A-lister in the role.
If there is one thing to really like about this movie, it's Kang the Conqueror. Kang is the new Thanos, so expectations for him are going to be very high. He's awesome. Intimidating, well acted, sadistic, and unquestionably evil, this is the type of villain they can really build on. While he did appear in Loki, you don't need to see that show to understand this movie (unlike Doctor Strange 2), which is very good. The problem with Kang is that he ultimately gets defeated by ants and gets into a fistfight with Scott Lang that ends in a draw. It delegitimizes him before he gets his chance to shine. Honestly, they should've just made a Kang movie instead of making this Ant-Man 3. Ant-Man himself isn't even the main character, maybe not even top 3 in the movie.
This is the worst MCU movie. Marvel needs a course correction, or else they're in really big trouble.
The Banshees of Inisherin
(2022)
9/10 for Nine Fingers
18 March 2023
The Banshees of Inisherin is a movie that succeeds in several different ways. It's a very Irish film; directed by Irishman Martin McDonagh, with an all-Irish cast, and a beautiful setting on Inisherin, a fictional island off the coast of Ireland. The premise is simple. Padraic and Colm are lifelong friends until Colm decides he doesn't like Padraic anymore. Colm then decides if Padraic keeps trying to talk to him, he'll cut his own fingers off. Perhaps the best thing about it is that it is both as a film you can appreciate at the surface level, and also for its deeper meanings as well. If you want to view it as a simple dark comedy, then it works as that. If you look for deeper meaning you find a story about loneliness, the limits of friendships, depression, broken relationships, and Bergman-esque existentialism that is present as well. There is also a theory that it's about the Irish Civil War (Inisherin means Ireland Island), which is something really different.
Meaning aside, Banshees is a great movie in technical terms. This is a fantastically written film. It's a tragicomedy, as good as it comes. There is a delicate balance between the two, and it knows exactly when to be lighthearted and when to be serious; there is no tonal inconsistency. It has genuinely funny moments. Each character has a style of humor that ties directly into their personality; the simplicity of Padraic, the dry humor of Colm, the bluntness of Siobhan, and even the (extremely) dark humor of Dominic. Not only do they each work perfectly well for each other, but also in relation to the other characters. Yet it is also filled with tragedy, especially the broken friendship itself. Although the ending of the film is rather open-ended, it is entirely possible that this feud is never resolved. Inisherin is gorgeous, and the cinematographer took advantage of every sweeping vista. It is an interesting juxtaposition, too. Life on Inisherin is so limiting, despite how physically open the island is.
All of the performances in this movie are exceptional. Colin Farell and Brendon Gleeson are great in the leading roles. Kerry Condon is fantastic as Siobhan as well. If there's one standout performance, it's that of Barry Keoghan as Dominic, who has been quietly building quite a repertoire for himself. The most interesting character in the movie is Mrs. McCormack. The question is; is she just a kooky old lady, or is she literally a banshee; literally an otherworldly being watching over Inisherin? The case can be made for both.
This is my personal pick for Best Picture.
Meaning aside, Banshees is a great movie in technical terms. This is a fantastically written film. It's a tragicomedy, as good as it comes. There is a delicate balance between the two, and it knows exactly when to be lighthearted and when to be serious; there is no tonal inconsistency. It has genuinely funny moments. Each character has a style of humor that ties directly into their personality; the simplicity of Padraic, the dry humor of Colm, the bluntness of Siobhan, and even the (extremely) dark humor of Dominic. Not only do they each work perfectly well for each other, but also in relation to the other characters. Yet it is also filled with tragedy, especially the broken friendship itself. Although the ending of the film is rather open-ended, it is entirely possible that this feud is never resolved. Inisherin is gorgeous, and the cinematographer took advantage of every sweeping vista. It is an interesting juxtaposition, too. Life on Inisherin is so limiting, despite how physically open the island is.
All of the performances in this movie are exceptional. Colin Farell and Brendon Gleeson are great in the leading roles. Kerry Condon is fantastic as Siobhan as well. If there's one standout performance, it's that of Barry Keoghan as Dominic, who has been quietly building quite a repertoire for himself. The most interesting character in the movie is Mrs. McCormack. The question is; is she just a kooky old lady, or is she literally a banshee; literally an otherworldly being watching over Inisherin? The case can be made for both.
This is my personal pick for Best Picture.
Great, but Not as Good as the Original
11 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
All Quiet on the Western Front is a bonafide 20th century classic, which has been adapted numerous times. The most notable is the Oscar winning 1930 adaptation, still often considered not only the greatest World War I movie, but even the greatest war film ever made. This is not a remake of the 1930 film, but rather an adaptation of the same source material, the novel by Erich Maria Remarque. The 2022 version, made in the novel's native Germany, is actually quite different from the classic film.
It is interesting to see what the filmmakers decided to include, exclude, or emphasize. The most noticeable addition from the 1930 version is a strong emphasis on the officers leading Paul and company to battle, and the most noticeable subtraction is Paul's return home between his two tenures in the war. Adding the emphasis on the officers does make sense; it's intended to emphasize both the forces that drive them to continue the war, and also the blind nationalism that kept it going. The original makes this same critique (one of the main points of the novel), but does so more faithfully to the novel, where the teacher encourages them to join the army for the sake of the nation. In the original, the classroom scene lasts quite a while (although talkies were very new at the time), in this version, it lasts a minute at max. Moving it to the officers does work in its own way. These are the people on top, and they do have all the influence. They are shown completely detached from the real battles in their luxurious train cars. For them, Paul and his friends are literal cannon fodder, not men worth saving. It is effective, even if it's different.
The subtraction of the return home is the biggest mistake this version makes. The purpose of All Quiet on the Western Front is to show the toll that war takes on the human psyche, and many of the most powerful moments in the original story are when he can't re-adapt to his life at home. All Quiet, despite not being a true story, is a deeply intimate and personal story. Now, there has been a trend in recent war movies (like Dunkirk or 1917) to omit the character's backstories, making them like a blank slate for the viewer to see themselves in. For All Quiet, it works for this version independently, but not as an adaptation of the novel. This also solidifies the depersonalization of the story; the nationalism element coming from the teacher adds a personal element to it, as Paul and company are inspired by someone they know and trust, not some anonymous officer far away. The ending is changed as well. Paul still dies, but the butterfly from the 1930 version is not present.
Visually, the film is incredible. The battle scenes look like time traveling back to World War I. It silently does some of its best humanizing here; these battles break Paul. It is not spoken, but you can see it in his eyes in each skirmish. The cinematography is outstanding. There are some breathtakingly beautiful shots in this film. Something about the lighting makes these shots so impressive. The makeup is jaw-dropping. It looks like they really threw these guys around in the mud and grime of the battlefield. The 1930 movie was shockingly violent for its time. While the 2022 version is definitely quite violent, it's not to the level of, say, Saving Private Ryan. The soundtrack is hit or miss. That repeated three note track doesn't work. While it is quite industrial, it's too modern for World War I. The rest of the music is good. It's intimate and solemn, much like the story itself. This is a good movie, but it is inferior to the 1930 version. It's difficult to separate the two, but if you have to pick one, go for the original.
Fun fact: if this wins Best Picture at the Oscars, it will be the first time ever two winners are adapted from the same source material.
It is interesting to see what the filmmakers decided to include, exclude, or emphasize. The most noticeable addition from the 1930 version is a strong emphasis on the officers leading Paul and company to battle, and the most noticeable subtraction is Paul's return home between his two tenures in the war. Adding the emphasis on the officers does make sense; it's intended to emphasize both the forces that drive them to continue the war, and also the blind nationalism that kept it going. The original makes this same critique (one of the main points of the novel), but does so more faithfully to the novel, where the teacher encourages them to join the army for the sake of the nation. In the original, the classroom scene lasts quite a while (although talkies were very new at the time), in this version, it lasts a minute at max. Moving it to the officers does work in its own way. These are the people on top, and they do have all the influence. They are shown completely detached from the real battles in their luxurious train cars. For them, Paul and his friends are literal cannon fodder, not men worth saving. It is effective, even if it's different.
The subtraction of the return home is the biggest mistake this version makes. The purpose of All Quiet on the Western Front is to show the toll that war takes on the human psyche, and many of the most powerful moments in the original story are when he can't re-adapt to his life at home. All Quiet, despite not being a true story, is a deeply intimate and personal story. Now, there has been a trend in recent war movies (like Dunkirk or 1917) to omit the character's backstories, making them like a blank slate for the viewer to see themselves in. For All Quiet, it works for this version independently, but not as an adaptation of the novel. This also solidifies the depersonalization of the story; the nationalism element coming from the teacher adds a personal element to it, as Paul and company are inspired by someone they know and trust, not some anonymous officer far away. The ending is changed as well. Paul still dies, but the butterfly from the 1930 version is not present.
Visually, the film is incredible. The battle scenes look like time traveling back to World War I. It silently does some of its best humanizing here; these battles break Paul. It is not spoken, but you can see it in his eyes in each skirmish. The cinematography is outstanding. There are some breathtakingly beautiful shots in this film. Something about the lighting makes these shots so impressive. The makeup is jaw-dropping. It looks like they really threw these guys around in the mud and grime of the battlefield. The 1930 movie was shockingly violent for its time. While the 2022 version is definitely quite violent, it's not to the level of, say, Saving Private Ryan. The soundtrack is hit or miss. That repeated three note track doesn't work. While it is quite industrial, it's too modern for World War I. The rest of the music is good. It's intimate and solemn, much like the story itself. This is a good movie, but it is inferior to the 1930 version. It's difficult to separate the two, but if you have to pick one, go for the original.
Fun fact: if this wins Best Picture at the Oscars, it will be the first time ever two winners are adapted from the same source material.
Women Talking
(2022)
Surprisingly Good
9 March 2023
Women Talking is a movie that achieves quite a bit with very little, much like its characters. The title says it all, it's about women talking, in this case about quite serious stuff. In a remote Mennonite colony, a series of rapes have been covered up, and the women must decide between fighting back and leaving the colony. The entire movie is all about this one idea. (That being said, it's one of the heavier PG-13 movies out there.) This is a rare movie that actually might work better as a stage play, given that the overwhelming majority of the film takes place in the hayloft.
If there is one thing Women Talking needs to do right, it's that it needs to be engaging. A movie that is nothing but 1 hour and 44 minutes of talking can be quite boring. This is an engaging movie, even if it gets off to a slow start. They cover everything; they talk about leaving the only home they ever knew, the fate of their souls, whether they could possibly win a fight, what it means to forgive, how these attacks can end, whether they could have done something sooner, and much more. As you watch it, you will be invested in their decision, and you will wonder what exactly they're going to do. None of it comes off as preachy, either. While the film does ultimately take a side, it doesn't treat that as absolutely, objectively correct. The characters are simple but effective, much like the movie itself. Even with the same simple backstory, each character has something completely different to bring to the table.
There are some things to nitpick. Right at the start of the movie they say these women have never received any formal education, yet they speak more eloquently than most people do, even the most educated. How is there a transgender person in this uber-conservative colony that hasn't been kicked out? Why did they cast Frances McDormand, an elite actress with a host of excellent roles in her career, for a role with no more than 10 lines? None of this outweighs the strengths of this movie. It's a surprisingly good movie, one that exceeded my expectations. It's not Best Picture winning quality, but definitely worthy of the nomination.
By the way, how can you not associate Nearer, My God, to Thee with the Titanic?
If there is one thing Women Talking needs to do right, it's that it needs to be engaging. A movie that is nothing but 1 hour and 44 minutes of talking can be quite boring. This is an engaging movie, even if it gets off to a slow start. They cover everything; they talk about leaving the only home they ever knew, the fate of their souls, whether they could possibly win a fight, what it means to forgive, how these attacks can end, whether they could have done something sooner, and much more. As you watch it, you will be invested in their decision, and you will wonder what exactly they're going to do. None of it comes off as preachy, either. While the film does ultimately take a side, it doesn't treat that as absolutely, objectively correct. The characters are simple but effective, much like the movie itself. Even with the same simple backstory, each character has something completely different to bring to the table.
There are some things to nitpick. Right at the start of the movie they say these women have never received any formal education, yet they speak more eloquently than most people do, even the most educated. How is there a transgender person in this uber-conservative colony that hasn't been kicked out? Why did they cast Frances McDormand, an elite actress with a host of excellent roles in her career, for a role with no more than 10 lines? None of this outweighs the strengths of this movie. It's a surprisingly good movie, one that exceeded my expectations. It's not Best Picture winning quality, but definitely worthy of the nomination.
By the way, how can you not associate Nearer, My God, to Thee with the Titanic?
Tár
(2022)
Masterpiece
8 March 2023
For every era of cinematic history, there are the films that decades later people look at them as the ones that showed a period in time for how it was. Tar will be remembered as one of the movies that defined the early 2020s. It's a complex character study that refuses to take a side, one that shows a deeply complicated person for who she is. This is a downfall story (you can see why Scorsese called it his favorite movie of the year), in which highly successful composer/conductor Lydia Tar falls from grace after allegations (that may or may not be true) emerge that she had a sexual relationship with a student, Krista Taylor, that ended in her suicide. It's an intensely psychological film, with a thin line between what is literally and not literally happening.
An intense character study by definition needs to be driven by a strong performance, and Cate Blanchett delivers not only the best performance of her career, but also the best performance of the year. Every part of her masterful performance is believable. At times she does not seem like a movie character as much as a real person whose life is being broadcast. She is equal parts powerful yet vulnerable, imposing yet fragile, villain yet victim. Blanchett humanizes Lydia Tar and all of her faults in a way that very few completely fictional movie characters are.
Tar is a film driven by well-handled juxtapositions. The primary example (as well as the most successful) is the aforementioned aspects of Lydia Tar's character. The setting of present day Berlin adds to the juxtaposition. It's one of Europe's premier cultural cities, but yet the aesthetic of the film turns it into a claustrophobic, lifeless prison. Even the concert hall of the Berlin Philharmonic, one of the most important venues in classical music, feels limiting. And then, of course, there's the ending. All I'll say is that it took us gamers by surprise.
It is perhaps unexpected for a movie that takes aim at cancel culture to gain traction in the way that Tar did. At a time when people fall in line with hiveminds and nuance is nonexistent, Tar is a movie that shows the deep complications of the human condition, where no one is all good, and no one is all bad. This is a distinctly contemporary aspect that adds a new layer to the classic downfall story, a character arc that has been told for millennia. The corrupting nature of power never changes; Citizen Kane is as relevant now as it was in 1941. The message here is clear: power corrupts not only the individual, but the masses as well.
One of the best things about Tar is the power of what is not shown. Krista Taylor's face does not appear on screen even once. Her voice is never heard either. She is the downfall of Lydia Tar and one of the most important characters in the movie and is completely invisible, and it works perfectly well. This aids the unbiased look at Lydia, by blocking any possibility of our own biases being affected by Krista as a character. Mahler's music is the perfect choice for this movie, as he was one of the great composers of the Romantic era, and is very emotionally driven, especially that 5th Symphony.
In a few decades, people will still be talking about Tar. People will associate Tar with the 2020s the same way they associate Taxi Driver with 1970s urban America, or even Caligari to the Weimar Republic. It will be a window into today's world for future generations. It's a great film back by a fantastic performance that handles its subject matter very well. This is the best film of 2022.
An intense character study by definition needs to be driven by a strong performance, and Cate Blanchett delivers not only the best performance of her career, but also the best performance of the year. Every part of her masterful performance is believable. At times she does not seem like a movie character as much as a real person whose life is being broadcast. She is equal parts powerful yet vulnerable, imposing yet fragile, villain yet victim. Blanchett humanizes Lydia Tar and all of her faults in a way that very few completely fictional movie characters are.
Tar is a film driven by well-handled juxtapositions. The primary example (as well as the most successful) is the aforementioned aspects of Lydia Tar's character. The setting of present day Berlin adds to the juxtaposition. It's one of Europe's premier cultural cities, but yet the aesthetic of the film turns it into a claustrophobic, lifeless prison. Even the concert hall of the Berlin Philharmonic, one of the most important venues in classical music, feels limiting. And then, of course, there's the ending. All I'll say is that it took us gamers by surprise.
It is perhaps unexpected for a movie that takes aim at cancel culture to gain traction in the way that Tar did. At a time when people fall in line with hiveminds and nuance is nonexistent, Tar is a movie that shows the deep complications of the human condition, where no one is all good, and no one is all bad. This is a distinctly contemporary aspect that adds a new layer to the classic downfall story, a character arc that has been told for millennia. The corrupting nature of power never changes; Citizen Kane is as relevant now as it was in 1941. The message here is clear: power corrupts not only the individual, but the masses as well.
One of the best things about Tar is the power of what is not shown. Krista Taylor's face does not appear on screen even once. Her voice is never heard either. She is the downfall of Lydia Tar and one of the most important characters in the movie and is completely invisible, and it works perfectly well. This aids the unbiased look at Lydia, by blocking any possibility of our own biases being affected by Krista as a character. Mahler's music is the perfect choice for this movie, as he was one of the great composers of the Romantic era, and is very emotionally driven, especially that 5th Symphony.
In a few decades, people will still be talking about Tar. People will associate Tar with the 2020s the same way they associate Taxi Driver with 1970s urban America, or even Caligari to the Weimar Republic. It will be a window into today's world for future generations. It's a great film back by a fantastic performance that handles its subject matter very well. This is the best film of 2022.
Triangle of Sadness
(2022)
Dull and Pretentious
6 March 2023
This is a prime example of a movie that has clear ambitions yet misses the mark spectacularly. The best word that can describe Triangle of Sadness is "snooty." From director Ruben Ostlund, it's a movie that thinks it has something new and important to say, when everything in it has already been said. It is also technically a dark comedy, but it's as funny as having nothing to do on an island. The only thing remotely funny in this movie was the scene with the hand grenade. That makes sense in context. It has a weird way of alternating between being ridiculously over the top and annoyingly ambiguous. The famed sinking scene where people vomit is the worst example of the former. Nobody needs to see a naked old man having diarrhea and vomiting on screen at the same time. It hits you over the head with its messages, and leaves the actual movie in the margins. The worst part is the ending, which doubles down on this. It's completely open-ended, without any hint of resolution.
It's quite clear what's being attempted here, but the response is always, "so what?" Probably the best example is the whole ordeal involving gender roles, which is featured at the beginning and the end. The movie starts with influencers Carl and Yaya arguing at a fancy restaurant over paying the bill. Then, at the end of the movie when they're stranded on an island, Carl starts having sex with Abigail, the toilet manager on the yacht, for extra food and privileges. It's pretty obvious that what we have here is an inversion of stereotypical gender roles and power structures. So what? What is Ostlund trying to say about this? It's not at all clear what the point is supposed to be. Another great example is the contrast between Thomas (an American socialist), and Dimitry (a Russian capitalist). Sure, it's conceptually interesting, but nothing is done with it. They argue as the yacht sinks, that's it.
The characters are horrible, they exist as mere caricatures, giving no reason to care about them or give room for any semblance of character development. No one is changed by the events taking place, they remain the same wooden stereotypes they started as. It's difficult to hate them, if that's the intention. It's like getting mad at the people on billboard ads. Now, one of the points is that these people have vapid and empty lives, but that doesn't mean they themselves need to be vapid and empty. Sure, the acting is good and it's great to see a cast of mostly unknown actors, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no substance to these characters. It's like a 2 and a half hour political cartoon.
There is always a certain hypocrisy in the movie industry making movies criticizing the rich and powerful. The very same lifestyles that movies like this criticize are the same ones that actors, directors, and executives live in while grandstanding about how much they care about poor people and social justice and what have you. They don't care, they never have, and as long as they continue making money, they never will. Also, who is going to see a movie like Triangle of Sadness? Aside from film nerds like me, it's the very same people that the movie is lambasting. It's a movie that tries to champion the working people made for high brow snobs, most of which are rich themselves. That's like starting a communist revolution in Bel-Air. This is a pretentious film made by pretentious people for other pretentious people.
It's quite clear what's being attempted here, but the response is always, "so what?" Probably the best example is the whole ordeal involving gender roles, which is featured at the beginning and the end. The movie starts with influencers Carl and Yaya arguing at a fancy restaurant over paying the bill. Then, at the end of the movie when they're stranded on an island, Carl starts having sex with Abigail, the toilet manager on the yacht, for extra food and privileges. It's pretty obvious that what we have here is an inversion of stereotypical gender roles and power structures. So what? What is Ostlund trying to say about this? It's not at all clear what the point is supposed to be. Another great example is the contrast between Thomas (an American socialist), and Dimitry (a Russian capitalist). Sure, it's conceptually interesting, but nothing is done with it. They argue as the yacht sinks, that's it.
The characters are horrible, they exist as mere caricatures, giving no reason to care about them or give room for any semblance of character development. No one is changed by the events taking place, they remain the same wooden stereotypes they started as. It's difficult to hate them, if that's the intention. It's like getting mad at the people on billboard ads. Now, one of the points is that these people have vapid and empty lives, but that doesn't mean they themselves need to be vapid and empty. Sure, the acting is good and it's great to see a cast of mostly unknown actors, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no substance to these characters. It's like a 2 and a half hour political cartoon.
There is always a certain hypocrisy in the movie industry making movies criticizing the rich and powerful. The very same lifestyles that movies like this criticize are the same ones that actors, directors, and executives live in while grandstanding about how much they care about poor people and social justice and what have you. They don't care, they never have, and as long as they continue making money, they never will. Also, who is going to see a movie like Triangle of Sadness? Aside from film nerds like me, it's the very same people that the movie is lambasting. It's a movie that tries to champion the working people made for high brow snobs, most of which are rich themselves. That's like starting a communist revolution in Bel-Air. This is a pretentious film made by pretentious people for other pretentious people.
Something Unique
3 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Everything Everywhere All at Once is a film that accomplishes something very difficult - it's a movie that looks like an action blockbuster on the outside, and succeeds not only at that but also as a film in general. It actually has a plot very reminiscent of many superhero films - an average person, in this case middle aged Chinese immigrant worker Evelyn Wang, is swept up into a fantastical world (or worlds) where her true potential is realized. It's bolstered by solid performances from Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan (who was the kid in Temple of Doom back in the day), Stephanie Hsu, and Jamie Lee Curtis. It is a very creative and original movie, both very welcome attributes in today's movie industry.
This is an off the wall film, but a perfectly made one. It has lightning-fast editing, and it feels much shorter than 2 hours, 19 minutes long. One of Everything Everywhere's best successes is that it takes the concept of a multiverse - the exact same thing Marvel has been doing for the last few years - and manages to make a cohesive structure for a complex metaphysics in just one film. There are still holes in its worldbuilding (like how there can only be one everything bagel if there are infinite universes), but as far as something this complex in a 2 hour movie goes, it's as good as it can be. The martial arts combat is the best there has ever been in an American action movie. It's got nothing on actual Chinese wuxia, but for Hollywood it's a massive upgrade from anything before. The costume design also aids the world building, and gives each unique universe its own distinctive flair.
Despite all the laud it gets, this movie is not at all perfect. The weirdness doesn't always feel organic, much of the content of the movie seems weird for the sake of being weird. There is a point at which to distinguish weirdness and uniqueness, this movie is on both sides. Some seem to think that there's a philosophical depth to this movie, which there isn't. This is the biggest problem with the movie. The movie's message is that nothing matters, but yet Evelyn and company most certainly act like things do, whether or not they'd admit it. The idea of nothing mattering is a de facto rejection of objective good, but yet the movie insists on a vague notion of "kindness" being the ultimate objective good. You can't have it both ways. The idea that in all these universes Evelyn and Joy come to the same point also implies the existence of fate and thus an ultimate purpose. It's the type of pseudo-philosophy that's tailored for the "I am very smart" superiority complex driven Rick and Morty crowd.
It is also worth noting that as of writing this, Everything Everywhere is the current frontrunner for Best Picture at the Oscars. It does not deserve it compared to the others. Tar, The Banshees of Inisherin, and even Top Gun: Maverick are all better movies than this. That doesn't mean it's not a good movie, it is, but it's far from the top. It is a surprising film to get attention from the awards crowds, there hasn't been an action movie win Best Picture since 1971. Back when this came out I said it was going to be one of the big snubs of the year.
This is an off the wall film, but a perfectly made one. It has lightning-fast editing, and it feels much shorter than 2 hours, 19 minutes long. One of Everything Everywhere's best successes is that it takes the concept of a multiverse - the exact same thing Marvel has been doing for the last few years - and manages to make a cohesive structure for a complex metaphysics in just one film. There are still holes in its worldbuilding (like how there can only be one everything bagel if there are infinite universes), but as far as something this complex in a 2 hour movie goes, it's as good as it can be. The martial arts combat is the best there has ever been in an American action movie. It's got nothing on actual Chinese wuxia, but for Hollywood it's a massive upgrade from anything before. The costume design also aids the world building, and gives each unique universe its own distinctive flair.
Despite all the laud it gets, this movie is not at all perfect. The weirdness doesn't always feel organic, much of the content of the movie seems weird for the sake of being weird. There is a point at which to distinguish weirdness and uniqueness, this movie is on both sides. Some seem to think that there's a philosophical depth to this movie, which there isn't. This is the biggest problem with the movie. The movie's message is that nothing matters, but yet Evelyn and company most certainly act like things do, whether or not they'd admit it. The idea of nothing mattering is a de facto rejection of objective good, but yet the movie insists on a vague notion of "kindness" being the ultimate objective good. You can't have it both ways. The idea that in all these universes Evelyn and Joy come to the same point also implies the existence of fate and thus an ultimate purpose. It's the type of pseudo-philosophy that's tailored for the "I am very smart" superiority complex driven Rick and Morty crowd.
It is also worth noting that as of writing this, Everything Everywhere is the current frontrunner for Best Picture at the Oscars. It does not deserve it compared to the others. Tar, The Banshees of Inisherin, and even Top Gun: Maverick are all better movies than this. That doesn't mean it's not a good movie, it is, but it's far from the top. It is a surprising film to get attention from the awards crowds, there hasn't been an action movie win Best Picture since 1971. Back when this came out I said it was going to be one of the big snubs of the year.
Elvis
(2022)
Fantastic Performance
2 March 2023
Elvis Presley was one of the essential pop-culture icons of the 20th century, even holding onto sales records 45 years after his death. With the popularity of movies like Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocketman, music biopics are really in right now. This biopic is a solid film led by a world-class performance from Austin Butler. Elvis is a man whose unique manner of speaking, mannerisms, and tone are among the main things that make him famous. Any impersonation of Elvis is immediately identifiable. Austin Butler nails these things perfectly. He not only looks and sounds like Elvis, he feels like Elvis too. The voice is an excellent match. He even moves exactly like the King himself, which is a very precise thing to get right. Everything about this acting role is perfect. This is the performance of a lifetime. There are videos on the internet of Butler and the real Elvis side by side, and it's uncanny. This is a performance that will be remembered for ages.
On the other hand, there's Elvis' manager Tom Parker "the Colonel", played by Tom Hanks. Hanks is so recognizable that he is his own brand, like a lesser Elvis, in a way. Everyone knows who he is, how he looks, how he sounds. It is incredibly difficult for such an iconic actor to play a real person, especially someone with an accent radically different from Hanks'. Despite Hanks being capable of that (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood proves that), it doesn't work here. Moving the perspective of the film to the Colonel was questionable, because he doesn't do very much as the narrator, and the controversy surrounding him is not explored as well as it could have been.
It's a movie that's very balanced in its depiction of Elvis. It shows the highs, the lows, and everything in between. It's a very humanizing portrayal that is not afraid to show him at his lowest points. It also gives credit to those who inspired him, particularly from black music. And it also shows him as a passionate artist who puts himself on stage as he is. The conflict between him and the Colonel is handled well, and you'll finish the movie sympathetic toward Elvis, perhaps even pitying him despite his successes.
The movie is also boosted by solid production values resulting in a highly stylish film. Elvis is a roller coaster ride of a film, one that feels much shorter than its 2 hour, 39 minute runtime. It's very fast paced, although it does somewhat slow down by the end. The musical numbers are fantastic, perfectly shot and edited, with a near exact likeness to the originals. The visuals across the board are stellar, and they contain the essence of each period in the changing world of the 1950s-1970s. Special attention should go to the costume design, which both captures the likeness of its time period, and matches Elvis' actual clothes perfectly.
There are some dumb things as well. This may be a really odd thing to happen, but the selection of non-Elvis music is terrible. For instance, there's a scene set on Beale Street in the 1950s, and there's hip-hop music in the background. While that may make sense for Beale Street today, it doesn't make any sense for back then. There was plenty of great black music being played there. The credits, too, have music that doesn't match at all.
In conclusion, Elvis is a solid film. Austin Butler's performance is one for the ages, and it's a very high quality production. Not only will it be nostalgic for older generations, but it's a way of showing Elvis to the younger generations who may only have a general idea as to who he was.
On the other hand, there's Elvis' manager Tom Parker "the Colonel", played by Tom Hanks. Hanks is so recognizable that he is his own brand, like a lesser Elvis, in a way. Everyone knows who he is, how he looks, how he sounds. It is incredibly difficult for such an iconic actor to play a real person, especially someone with an accent radically different from Hanks'. Despite Hanks being capable of that (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood proves that), it doesn't work here. Moving the perspective of the film to the Colonel was questionable, because he doesn't do very much as the narrator, and the controversy surrounding him is not explored as well as it could have been.
It's a movie that's very balanced in its depiction of Elvis. It shows the highs, the lows, and everything in between. It's a very humanizing portrayal that is not afraid to show him at his lowest points. It also gives credit to those who inspired him, particularly from black music. And it also shows him as a passionate artist who puts himself on stage as he is. The conflict between him and the Colonel is handled well, and you'll finish the movie sympathetic toward Elvis, perhaps even pitying him despite his successes.
The movie is also boosted by solid production values resulting in a highly stylish film. Elvis is a roller coaster ride of a film, one that feels much shorter than its 2 hour, 39 minute runtime. It's very fast paced, although it does somewhat slow down by the end. The musical numbers are fantastic, perfectly shot and edited, with a near exact likeness to the originals. The visuals across the board are stellar, and they contain the essence of each period in the changing world of the 1950s-1970s. Special attention should go to the costume design, which both captures the likeness of its time period, and matches Elvis' actual clothes perfectly.
There are some dumb things as well. This may be a really odd thing to happen, but the selection of non-Elvis music is terrible. For instance, there's a scene set on Beale Street in the 1950s, and there's hip-hop music in the background. While that may make sense for Beale Street today, it doesn't make any sense for back then. There was plenty of great black music being played there. The credits, too, have music that doesn't match at all.
In conclusion, Elvis is a solid film. Austin Butler's performance is one for the ages, and it's a very high quality production. Not only will it be nostalgic for older generations, but it's a way of showing Elvis to the younger generations who may only have a general idea as to who he was.
The Fabelmans
(2022)
Very good, but not a masterpiece
28 February 2023
The Fabelmans is a legacy movie, one that's supposed to cap off a legendary career. While Spielberg is still going strong, it's clear that Fabelmans is intended to cement his legacy with this film. It's semi-autobiographical, young Jewish filmmaker Sammy Fabelman builds on his childhood passion for films as his family's life falls apart around him. The film follows Sammy, his parents and three sisters, through his early childhood up to college, with everything from fun family trips, moving across the country, and his parent's divorce. It's a very heartfelt movie, and most of its scenes have a deeply personal touch to them. Some of the best scenes in this film are the scenes of just them having fun together as a family.
The cast and acting are fantastic. The standout performance is that of Michelle Williams. Mitzi, Sammy's mother, is such a lively character, and Williams performs her serious and fun moments excellently. Hers was easily the best in the movie, and quite possibly the best of her career as well. The child actors were good as well. Gabriel LaBelle, teenage Sammy's actor, was also very good for someone new on the scene. Judd Hirsch's extremely limited role was a good one, and he completely steals his one scene. The Fabelmans will also be remembered as probably the last collaboration between Spielberg and the legendary John Williams, the greatest director-composer duo there ever was, and is likely to ever be. The soundtrack is more intimate than most of Williams' music, and feels very much like Satie.
There are two things this movie did right as a biopic. The first is that Spielberg does not make his own self-insert this perfect guy. The other, which is tied directly to the first, is that every member of the Fabelman family is treated fairly, himself included. Regarding the first, there isn't much self-indulgence in this movie (although if anyone has earned it, it's Spielberg). Sammy is brilliant at what he does, but he's depicted as no less faulted than anyone else. With the second, there's the way everyone and their actions are looked at not through the eyes of Sammy, but rather through Spielberg himself. The movie doesn't live in the moment of its own time, it looks at it through more mature eyes.
And yet, it's not a masterpiece. The Fabelmans is a good film, but it's neither as good as it was expected to be nor as good as it really can be. The main issue with the movie is the pacing, it can't eat everything on its plate, despite the 2 hour, 31 minute runtime. It dedicates way too much time to things that really aren't that important, such as the mini-arc with the high school girlfriend, Monica. Furthermore, a lot of major ideas, like his father viewing moviemaking as a hobby rather than a career, is underdeveloped. It starts out and ends as a movie about an aspiring filmmaker, but then gets lost along the way. It also doesn't help that most of the best scenes in this movie are clustered towards the beginning of the film. The first ten minutes of the movie are practically perfect, but the last third of it really starts to drag. Judd Hirsch's character of Uncle Boris is a great character, but he only has one scene. The movie spends as much time building up his arrival as it does actually having him on the screen. Given the role that this character plays in Sammy's life, it would make sense to give him more screen time. There is definitely enough material to fill that runtime, but it is not used properly.
I can't help but compare this to one of last year's contenders, Kenneth Branagh's Belfast. They have quite a lot in common. Both are a semi-autobiographical film by an acclaimed director that focuses on his childhood growing up in a tumultuous time period with difficult family decisions looming over them, and movies are a light in the darkness and the source of his inspiration. They even both have the same shot of the child protagonist staring in awe upon seeing his first movie in the theater. The difference is that Belfast makes better use of its time, doesn't show anything unnecessary, and does all this despite being 50 minutes shorter.
This is perhaps an instance where there were unfair expectations for the movie heading in. There was a time before release when people were acting like this movie was a lock for Best Picture. The trailer for the movie is one of the best in recent memory. And it did get glowing reviews from the critics and all the major nominations, and Best Picture at the Globes. Very few movies can live up to standards as high as that. And it is a pity, because if this movie was as good as it could have been, it would no doubt find its place among Spielberg's all-time greats.
The cast and acting are fantastic. The standout performance is that of Michelle Williams. Mitzi, Sammy's mother, is such a lively character, and Williams performs her serious and fun moments excellently. Hers was easily the best in the movie, and quite possibly the best of her career as well. The child actors were good as well. Gabriel LaBelle, teenage Sammy's actor, was also very good for someone new on the scene. Judd Hirsch's extremely limited role was a good one, and he completely steals his one scene. The Fabelmans will also be remembered as probably the last collaboration between Spielberg and the legendary John Williams, the greatest director-composer duo there ever was, and is likely to ever be. The soundtrack is more intimate than most of Williams' music, and feels very much like Satie.
There are two things this movie did right as a biopic. The first is that Spielberg does not make his own self-insert this perfect guy. The other, which is tied directly to the first, is that every member of the Fabelman family is treated fairly, himself included. Regarding the first, there isn't much self-indulgence in this movie (although if anyone has earned it, it's Spielberg). Sammy is brilliant at what he does, but he's depicted as no less faulted than anyone else. With the second, there's the way everyone and their actions are looked at not through the eyes of Sammy, but rather through Spielberg himself. The movie doesn't live in the moment of its own time, it looks at it through more mature eyes.
And yet, it's not a masterpiece. The Fabelmans is a good film, but it's neither as good as it was expected to be nor as good as it really can be. The main issue with the movie is the pacing, it can't eat everything on its plate, despite the 2 hour, 31 minute runtime. It dedicates way too much time to things that really aren't that important, such as the mini-arc with the high school girlfriend, Monica. Furthermore, a lot of major ideas, like his father viewing moviemaking as a hobby rather than a career, is underdeveloped. It starts out and ends as a movie about an aspiring filmmaker, but then gets lost along the way. It also doesn't help that most of the best scenes in this movie are clustered towards the beginning of the film. The first ten minutes of the movie are practically perfect, but the last third of it really starts to drag. Judd Hirsch's character of Uncle Boris is a great character, but he only has one scene. The movie spends as much time building up his arrival as it does actually having him on the screen. Given the role that this character plays in Sammy's life, it would make sense to give him more screen time. There is definitely enough material to fill that runtime, but it is not used properly.
I can't help but compare this to one of last year's contenders, Kenneth Branagh's Belfast. They have quite a lot in common. Both are a semi-autobiographical film by an acclaimed director that focuses on his childhood growing up in a tumultuous time period with difficult family decisions looming over them, and movies are a light in the darkness and the source of his inspiration. They even both have the same shot of the child protagonist staring in awe upon seeing his first movie in the theater. The difference is that Belfast makes better use of its time, doesn't show anything unnecessary, and does all this despite being 50 minutes shorter.
This is perhaps an instance where there were unfair expectations for the movie heading in. There was a time before release when people were acting like this movie was a lock for Best Picture. The trailer for the movie is one of the best in recent memory. And it did get glowing reviews from the critics and all the major nominations, and Best Picture at the Globes. Very few movies can live up to standards as high as that. And it is a pity, because if this movie was as good as it could have been, it would no doubt find its place among Spielberg's all-time greats.
Tell Your Friends