Reviews
Excalibur (1981)
"Sprints like a deer through the thickets of legend"
In its way this is quite a magnificent movie. My wife and I saw it in the theater on its release and we were just so impressed -- and it sticks in the mind. Even now, when some of its special effects and sets look rather outdated, it has a raw power, commitment, and energy that are undeniable.
This is the best King Arthur movie out there, hands down. Arthurian lore is so diverse and well established that it will survive any version and any take on it, but some certainly stand up better than others. Excalibur stands out because it takes the legend just as it is: straight on, no apologies. After all, the Arthurian cycle is mythic, not historic, and attempts to make it grounded and gritty for "modern" consumption like some more recent efforts (see King Arthur (2004) or Legend of the Sword (2017)) might be watchable but they just don't last. One reviewer -- I think the one for Time magazine but I've forgotten exactly -- said that Excalibur "sprints like a deer through the thickets of legend". Exactly right. In two dazzling hours it follows Arthur's life beginning to end, in a way that treats the story just as it is: fantasy and legend, with no useless tethers to the real world,
The actors, who at that stage were a largely unknown group of young people, do a great job. Nigel Terry grows in front of our eyes from a young country rube into a figure of stature and majesty (and I like the way his voice and delivery of lines change to match). The others like Nicholas Clay (Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi (Guinevere), Helen Mirren (Morgan LeFay) fit their roles seamlesslly. And there are others playing more minor roles who would soon become A-listers -- Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, Gabriel Byrne.
But the standout is Nicol Willamson as Merlin. This is by far the most convincing version of the character to be seen on screen, and Excalibur is worth seeing just for him. His eccentric, tightly controlled performance is perfectly explained by the simple fact that, of course, he's an ageless wizard who lives simultaneously in two worlds, the everyday and the spirit realm. Under those conditions it would be hard to behave 'normally'.
Another key to the production is the setting and the visuals. Some scenes, like the sword rising straight up from the water in the hand of the Lady, or the finale with Arthur being carried to Avalon, are flat-out electrifying, and the choice of Wagner's music as accompaniment is genius. I'd like to go on and on but the message is, if you haven't seen it then what are you waiting for? And if you have seen it, revel in another watch.
However, there is just one thing to do first. To get the most out of Excalibur, take all our 21st-century attitudes of irony and snark and check them at the door. Then dive into this and enjoy.
Thor (2011)
Still the best Thor movie, and one of the best superhero films ever
Just rewatched Thor on video after a few years' gap and I still enjoy the heck out of it. This made stars of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston, and my god the extra star power? Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgaard, Idris Elba, Rene Russo (underused), and Anthony Hopkins for goodness' sake. And for the MCU, our first real glimpses at Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) and Darcy (Kat Dennings) who would carry those roles onward. The biggest key of all, though, was putting Kenneth Branagh in the director's chair and giving him room to work.
One thing I liked that followed on from that decision was to take this story seriously and play it straight. Norse gods, Asgard, and Frost Giants? Really? Marvel apparently saw Thor as a big risk, this soon in the unfolding of MCU, but that was exactly the right way to play it. We're invited right from the start to buy in to that outlook, and boy it works. In the later Thor and Avengers movies, Thor got turned into something of a clown and played for jokes, which mostly leaves a bad taste in the mouth. That does a serious disservice to the character.
Extra kudos here go to Patrick Doyle's magnificent musical score, which has a grandeur and intensity that no later Marvel film has matched (yes, including Avengers Endgame. I mean it.) It baffles me why it wasn't used more in the later films. The big payoff scene with Thor's (apparent) death and resurrection, when I first saw it in the theater all those years ago, was electrifying. There he is, riding the storm and taking on the invincible Destroyer (who by the way was comic-book accurate, beautifully rendered). It worked so well, first because the victory was earned (we've watched hero mature and become someone truly worthy of wielding Mjolnir), next because of the striking visuals, and next because of that pulsing music. There's little else in the Marvel movies that equals this scene, except maybe the inspired rendition of that rainbow Bifrost bridge. And Asgard as a whole.
I downgrade my rating just a little to a mainly because the three sidekicks Fandral, Hogun, and Volstagg aren't terribly well used (and they are similarly kind of useless in the Thor comics too). Sif (Jaimie Alexander) has a lot more promise, but was repeatedly underused here and in the later films (in the real Norse mythology, Sif is Thor's wife -- that was too much to swallow, I guess).
Amyway - enjoy!
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
A well executed early entry in the MCU
Just re-watched this on DVD, and found it stands up pretty well. A decade ago. The MCU was still in early stages of building its empire and the movies had the feeling of freshness and newness, many central characters were being given their full outing on the screen for the first time, and there was lots to look forward to. The first half of CA I think still stands as one of the best Marvel storytelling outings. The second half is more of predictable battle and combat scenes strung together.
Really, the cast is great. Chris Evans totally establishes his ultimate good-guy character fighting on the side of right, truth, and fairness. He looks and acts the part as well as any MCU persona.m and it's no accident he was one of the best-beloved Marvel heros. Add to this Hayley Atwell -- a supporting role here but one that proved to have a lot of longevity (including perhaps the centermost role in the What If --? Alternate-history series, which is loads of fun). Then Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, and Hugo Weaving, always great. They make it all so easy to watch.
This time through, I was struck by something new: the structural parallels with Wonder Woman (2017). I don't think that was intentional, but several basic elements play out the same way: we have the superpowered hero fighting on the side of right during a World War, his/her intrepid band of companions, the doomed best friend, the villain holding god-like powers, the giant bomber revealed at the end that is carrying a load of Ultimate Weapons. I suppose that just reflects the fact that there aren't a lot of totally innovative plots for movies like this.
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
What will Tom Cruise do when he gets too old to run?
Watching this glossy actioner, I actually wondered for a while if we would make it to the end without a scene where Tom Cruise is running desperately to save something-or-other. But, sure enough, toward the end there he is running in a flight suit through some unspecified snowy pine forest. See Tom run. Run, Tom, run. This time-filling scripting feels like it's done in place of something better like, for example, acting. The thing is, Cruise is actually a capable actor, such as here in the (very) occasional scenes where he allows himself to express self-doubt or internal reflection. I liked his performances in things like Rain Man, Jerry Maguire, Edge of Tomorrow, or Oblivion, for example, which show off a good deal more.
But, that's not what the franchises like Top Gun and Mission Impossible are all about. They're about hi-tech action, sell tickets, give the target audiences what they want to see. Very high production values coupled with entirely predictable and cliche-ridden plots. The good guys face a highly contrived, arbitrary set of challenges but win out in the end, and the bad guys lose with a high body count. And of course the essence is about glorifying the leading man, around whom everyone else in the cast must orbit. Not to say that the flight sequences in Top Gun aren't thrilling at times -- the climax of the long bombing run and dogfight etc. Really was.
The cast of cocky-new-guard ace pilots carefully curated to show diversity is fine, but none really stand out above the limits of the script. Jennifer Connelly just keeps getting more attractive, but yet again, she's in the story just as support for the leading male. And the brief scenes with Ed Harris, genuinely one of the best actors out there never to win an Oscar, stand out. But I really wish Cruise would go another direction, because he's capable of more. Stop running and start thinking.
Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)
This is a really enjoyable, well done movie. Naysayers begone
This isn't quite the epic LOTR-scale fantasy that it is clearly striving for, but I thought this was a captivating, totally watchable movie with loads of interesting material. I appreciate its ambition. Even though its reach just a bit exceeds its grasp, it's trying for a lot. A thorough re-imagining of the old fairytale with a long, complex storyline, a wide variety of dramatic scenes and settings, several well known actors -- get in the mood and there's lots to like here. And looking back a decade later, it's still fun. A classic huge gloomy castle with turrets and passageways galore, a Dark Forest, a true fairyland, a thundering army in mediaeval mail, and of course a group of acerbically charming Dwarves -- added-value to the essential elements of the classic story, which are all there but delivered with a different point of view.
Contrary to what some other reviewers say, this is the first thing I saw Kristen Stewart in that made me think she does have the goods as an actor. She does soulful expressions just great, and her re-imagining of sweet Snow White as a grime-covered semi-action hero but with special life-enhancing abilities is clever. It's not Shakespeare by any means, but she does a good job. Chris Hemsworth plays somewhat counter to type as the Huntsman, an antihero with a tragic past (explored much more in the sequel "Winter's War)" who gradually finds his path back to light. And of course Charlize Theron totally leans in to the Evil Queen persona, perhaps just chewing the scenery a bit too much. But then, this is a fairystory and so the characters are archetypes in the end.
Am I giving this all too much credit? Actually, I don't think so. This production stands up quite well, and as I said, if you get in the mood, you'll enjoy it a lot. But check your 21st-century cynicism and snark at the door.
Star Trek: The Next Generation: Yesterday's Enterprise (1990)
The best Star Trek TNG episode, as far as I'm concerned
TNG was always the best of the Star Trek franchise. Back when it was new, seasons 3, 4, and 5 were where they really hit their stride. It was must-see TV week in and week out. The scripts were ingenious and well written, they tackled loads of social and political issues of the day by cleverly placing them in the future and giving them a new twist. And by then we all loved the Enterprise-D crew and wanted to see what they'd encounter next: Picard of course, but also Data, Worf, Crusher, Troi, LaForge, Riker -- whoever your favorite was. Going on past season 5 things started inevitably falling off in intensity and quality, but the midstream of this series run was SO good at times.
"Yesterday's Enterprise" though still stands as my favorite. Watching it for the first time I remember exclaiming "hey, this is REAL science fiction!" -- a cut above the essential nature of Star Trek which is often just cowboys-in-space. War between empires. Time travel. Moral conundrums: dare they change the past or not? The whole plot of this episode has an inevitability to it that is carried off to a T. And it builds on the foundation of almost all the previous three years of the series, using all their characters but particularly Tasha and Guinan in surprising ways. It holds up well -- if you haven't seen it, butyou know the TNG characters, you've got a treat in store.
Tomorrow, When the War Began (2010)
What a well made movie this is. Absolute gem!
I first saw this shortly after is release back in 2010 -- it was part of an Australian new wave of lean, tightly made movies that could compete on the international market, and it's an absolute gem. A small bunch of late-teens from the fictional country town of Wirrawee are on a long weekend excursion far away from everything when their country is invaded in a blitzkrieg by an unspecified Alliance led by an unnamed General. (But clearly these enemies are Oriental in some way -- one would guess Korea or China, so if you're troubled by overt racism this will likely bother you). However, 99 percent of the story is on the young group who gradually and reluctantly find that they must turn themselves into guerilla soldiers. It's completely their show.
I hadn't seen any of the troupe of young actors playing the main roles before, and they're all great. They sell it. The Australian scenery is on full display too, and most of all, the pacing and script are exactly right. Nothing drags but nothing is rushed. These young people don't have superpowers, and nothing happens that is out of the realm of possibility. They learn to do things because that's what people do when pushed beyond their normal limits.
Madame Web (2024)
There IS a way to watch this and enjoy it, but it calls for a certain mindset
Madame Web is indeed not too great, but I found a way to get some enjoyment out of it (without escaping into the obvious and unrewarding alternative of mockery). The way is to put yourself back in the mindset of roughly 25 years ago (which coincidentally is the time period the film is set in). Back then, superhero films were new -- think the first two Spiderman movies -- the superpowers were more specific and limited, the stakes were smaller, the stories were personal and kind of low-key compared with the present time. It was all fresh and new and started at a level you could believe. When you see it through that lens, there are things to enjoy. Dakota Johnson in the lead role is fine and she's on screen for almost every scene. The occasional 'Web vision' sequences are well done too, and the references to spiderweb patterns everywhere she looks are kind of clever.
In other words: superhero movies don't have to be all Avengers-infinity-War level all the time with their universe-saving stakes, characters with godlike powers, and endless screen-melting battle scenes. The sequence starting with Iron Man (2008) and ending with Endgame (2019) was pretty amazing, but we might not see anything like it again. "Ordinary superhero" films can work too and we're in a different era.
All that being said, Madame Web does have serious problems. The script and dialog are pretty uninspired -- like it passed through too many hands. The villain Ezekiel Sims (Tahar Rahim) is cringeworthy, about as good as if he were doing a second rehearsal. The main plotline is that Cassie Webb (Johnson) is trying to save three young women who are going to become Spiderwomen (played by Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced, Celeste O'Connor) from being brutally killed, a fate that she's seen with her precognitive power. But the action wanders and jumps around here and there and never feels like it settles on a coherent approach. Unfortunately, I would guess that these three young actresses are never going to get the chance to play their nascent Spiderwomen roles again. That's a shame, because there are some good storylines in that direction to work with.
It's great that IMDb shows the viewer votes and not just thumbs-up or thumbs-down. But you really have to go beyond the average rating and look at the full bar graph of the actual votes (which you can see by clicking on the average rating at upper right on the screen). From the graph, you can see for yourself what the trollvote factor is (the bin at 1/10), discard it, and look at the REAL average from the rest. It's always obvious where the real center of the distribution is, and I usually find that I agree with it. I don't know if I've ever seen a movie that truly deserved a 1/10 and I don't think this one does either -- but despite some good elements, I can't rate it higher than about 4 or 5. And of course, there are way too many 'fans' out there who can't seem to stand superhero movies led by F rather than M protagonists and will not take these movie on their merits.
Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire (2023)
Strong visuals, derivative plot, violent. A grundgy Star Wars.
There's no denying Zack Snyder's impressive visual imagination, which is on full display here. The opening few minutes by themselves are worth seeing, as we are introduced to heroine Kora (Sofia Boutella), living amidst vast scenery on a moon around a huge Saturn-like planet filling the sky. Many later scenes show off Snyder's characteristic obsession with dark, brooding lighting and apocalyptic settings. In its own way, this is all sort of fascinating.
It's all very watchable, but the whole problem is that even with stuff to look at, you still need to have a story to tell. All these impressive visuals, and the plot such as it is, are deployed at the service of scenes of extended violence and combat that seem to be just there as set pieces. And as lots of others have already said, this part of it is pretty derivative -- there are elements of Star Wars, of course (a plucky band of rebels against a huge Evil Empire), but also feels from Avatar, Tarzan, Game of Thrones, and other fantasy/sf adventures. It also doesn't help that the basic premise doesn't make a lot of sense: Kora's plan for fighting the Empire and its millions of soldiers is to gather a little rogue band of specialist fighters who can then do (something-or-other) to semi magically bring everything down. Of course it all has to finish up with scenes of hand-to-hand combat that go on and on in great detail. It seems like these scenes are the director's real interest. The main cast has several familiar names, and they all do OK, but most of the time they have little to work with except to keep the action going.
If only Snyder would turn over the scripting and storyboarding to someone else. As Ursula LeGuin said, if there's nothing going on but unceasing physical action, it's a sure sign that no story is being told. For me, Snyder's most complete accomplishment is still "Watchmen" (2009), which is also pretty dystopian but has his best combination of plot, characters, and visuals.
Kimitachi wa dô ikiru ka (2023)
An engrossing and puzzling journey that will stick in your mind
"Princess Mononoke" is the only other Miyazaki film that I've seen (which is clearly my loss). Just saw The Boy and the Heron in its subtitled (not dubbed) English version at one of our local independent cinemas, and it's quite an experience. To say the least, Miyazaki has an inventive mind. The overarching theme of the story is that young Mahito embarks on a journey to meet (or save?) his mother, thought by everyone to have died in a fire the year before. But that summary conveys almost nothing of what happens on screen. We are step by step taken into an increasingly bizarre wonderland of human and non-human, good and evil characters who alternately guide Mahito, or hinder him, or push him along. He's a naive boy, but not just a cipher to whom things happen: he has a will of his own and is not afraid to assert it at critical times -- but as we see, his judgment isn't always true.
There's no doubt that Miyazaki has an impressive visual imagination, which is on full display here. I was struck by the extreme use of 'masking' as an animation technique: the backgrounds, landscapes, and settings both outdoors and indoors are rendered with full, lush detail and striking colors, whereas the main characters are drawn quite simply and generically, which makes it easier for the viewers to put themselves in their place amidst the action. (The exceptions are the odd characters that we would NOT identify with, like the Grandfather or the gnome-like grannies in the country house -- those are drawn in very specific detail.) And there are genuinely arresting concepts that will stay in your mind, like the corridor of doors leading into different worlds (in this movie, the multiverse is digital, not continuous!), or the fire maiden Himi.
The strongest impression I came away with, though, was that as the movie went along, I could not predict what we were going to see next: the action flows from scene to scene smoothly enough, but with big and sometimes jarring changes in location and sub-theme, as if they didn't want to be held to a single self-consistent storyline. Perhaps I'm just too wedded to Western linear thinking. This story is coming from a truly different place.
Anti Matter (2016)
Its reach exceeds its grasp
This is a British low-budget sf film from director Keir Burrows. Low budget is not a bad thing in itself if the story concept is good and the execution is clever, but (at most) only one of these things applies here. The protagonists Ana, Nate, and Liv have a makeshift basement lab in which they discover matter transference through homemade wormholes. (Actual real physics says that a wormhole requires pseudo-infinite energy to keep open, so a bit beyond these guys' budget, but oh well - ). After a while we get references to quantum tunnels, clones, photonic beings with no mass, and other things. And the dialog fills up with junk science. The starting point isn't bad and at the beginning I was looking forward to seeing how this would develop. But it lost its way in a meandering middle act during which the main character (Ana) searches for answers and her lab mates are evasive and annoying. The denoument does have answers of a sort but it's a mishmash that's not very satisfying. The underlying science might be worthwhile as a concept for a plot, but the script and details of the storyline just aren't enough to make good on it.
I'll put in a good word for the lead actress Yaiza Figueroa (Ana), who is better than the material she's been given to work with. Aside from that -- not a lot to say.
Maestro (2023)
I predict 4 or 5 Oscar nominations
Just back from seeing Maestro on its opening weekend at our local theaters. Bradley Cooper and Carey Mulligan seem to be shoo-ins for Best Actor nominations, along with a few other categories like set design, costuming, and cinematography. I admired the craftsmanship on display here quite a bit -- meticulous recreation of the styles, settings, speech patterns from the 1940's through the 70's. And obviously Cooper dug very deep into channeling Leonard Bernstein, not just hairdo and makeup. (And at times his resemblance to the real Bernstein is pretty stunning.) I knew a lot less about his wife and love Felicia Montealegre, but I'm assuming the same is true for Carey Mulligan's portrayal of her. They are both arresting, finely nuanced performances.
It's all impressive and worth seeing more than once. One thing I wanted more of was, oddly enough, the music. We mostly get only tiny snippets of Bernstein's own compositions, plus a bit of Beethoven and others, as if Cooper (who's also the director) thought we the audience wouldn't have the patience for more. Wrong, IMO. There is one -- just one -- centerpiece scene allowed to play out full measure, which is Bernstein conducting the last several minutes of the titanic Mahler Second Symphony in a huge cathedral. It's the highlight of the film, and although the purpose seems to be to show B's over-the-top directing style, the music itself is what's overwhelming. Bernstein seemed to be made for Mahler (than whom there is no more emotional composer) and his work bringing all of Mahler's symphonic work back into the mainstream is for me his biggest career accomplishment.
The rest of the movie is like a series of short vignettes, as if we are putting blocks together to gradually assemble a rounded picture of Lenny and Felicia. I wanted them to let some scenes just play out longer. When this thing is on Netflix I'll watch it again to help decipher all the rapid-fire, overlapping dialog. And, I'm not sure that even if you go back and look at films from the 1940's you would see this much cigarette smoking! It's a feature. He was clearly a chain smoker, but was she as well? Perhaps so, given their causes of death.
All this said, it's a major film and worth going to see. There are loads of movie biographies of famous people that are totally off track. This one isn't.
Dream Scenario (2023)
Comedy? No, this is an eccentric horror movie
Just back from the theater. My rating of 5/10 really reflects more my personal reaction to it, rather than how well it was done and acted. It's advertised as a comedy, but there aren't really many laughs, and I wouldn't even call it a black comedy. As we watch Paul Matthews' (Nicolas Cage) life slowly disassemble through no fault of his own, it wanders fully into the horror regime. Not some crude slasher type of thing -- stylisically this is closer to what Alfred Hitchcock might have made with the same material. And personally I just don't react well to horror -- there are twenty different things I'd rather do with my time, thanks. If I hadn't been with friends, I might not have sat through it all.
Not that it's a bad production. On the contrary, it's well acted (and thus effective) and Nic Cage displays all his considerable acting skills to the full. Matthews is a sort of dumpy middle-aged professor at some small college who's a failed researcher and a rather ordinary teacher. Everything about him is ordinary. He's not dislikable but not terribly interesting or likable either, and is just generally ineffectual at everything at either work or home. He's not someone you would want to spend a lot of time with. (Paradoxically, Cage is so good at conveytng Paul's lackluster life and inner nature that he actually makes us less interested to watch!) Paul likes the momentary fame of being at the center of this unique communal dream phenomenon, but when it takes a violent turn (in the dreams, that is) he doesn't seem to know what to do, gives in to his buried rage, and ends up participating in his own destruction.
There's lots of satire of modern life, like cancel culture, New Age woo-woo thinking, the emptiness of suburbia, monetization and corporatization of practically anything, and me-first attitudes -- but I felt like these were secondary to the main thread of horror/tragedy. Sorry, but not for me. The thing is that if some explanation had been given for why this communal-dream phenomenon was happening, and thus what to do about it, it would have been more in the direction of a science-fiction movie. I might have found that more interesting. When word gets around that this obscure person is appearing in all kinds of peoples' dreams, researchers would jump on it and treat it as a huge puzzle to be solved -- something that would reveal much about the brain and collective unconscious and so forth. There's no sign that any of that is happening here, it's all focussed on the reactive effects on Paul and his life. In the end I'm not sure what to take away from this thing.
A Matter of Life and Death (1946)
Peculiar but ingenious fantasy
WW2 aviator Peter Carter (a young David Niven), flying back to England from a bombing run over Germany, finds himself on a burning plane with no parachute, the rest of the crew either dead or having already bailed out. After a desperate "mayday" conversation with radio operator June (Kim Hunter) in which the two fall hopelessly in love, he jumps. But in the heavy fog, Heaven misses their chance to take him and he survives. He and June immediately meet, fall further in love, and thus create very big bureaucratic problems for the Folks Upstairs. Peter has now made marks in the real world that weren't supposed to have happened. After a winding road through Act II, Peter must face a trial with the Powers that Be to decide whether or not he can be granted a full life, or be Taken Up as was originally scheduled.
That's the plot, and if well done, the concept is almost guaranteed to be entertaining. It's very much in the style of other good films like Heaven Can Wait (1978), Here Comes Mister Jordan (1941), or Soul (2020). The main cast is really just dominated by five roles: Peter, June, Frank (Roger Livesey), "Conductor 71" (Marius Goring), and Abraham Farlan (Raymond Massey). Massey's entrance happens only with the trial, but he makes a strong impression as always. It's all consistently easy to watch.
But there are many features of this thing that are just flat-out strange, or at a minimum, completely arbitrary. The dialog is clever and biting, but also quirky and nonlinear, as if it was written by bright but totally inexperienced scripters. It's always a little -- off center. Some characters and even scenes seem to have no relevance at all (why is the first person Peter meets in his second life a shepherd boy on the beach with goats, and why is he naked playing a flute??). Is the heavenly Judge to be thought of as God, or an archangel? And why is he the same person as the surgeon working on Peter's brain? Why does 'Conductor 71' have no name, and an absurdly thick pseudo-French accent? I guess there's much here that is mildly allegorical, and the thing about allegory is that it's not rational -- it takes a different route into your mind.
Anyway, there's a fair bit of stuff here that seems pretty innovative for the time (almost 80 years ago!). The visual concept for Heaven and the setting for the Trial, and that big staircase, are impressive even now. The real world is in Technicolor, but Heaven is in classic black and white -- a feature that one of the characters comments on, surrealistically. And there's one little scene, during the section where Peter is simultaneously under the knife on the operating table and temporarily on trial Above, that is a standout. He and two of the angelic representatives drop down to check out the operating room (having conveniently stopped the flow of time so that no one is aware of them). We see them walk right through a glass-paned door as if it's not there. The effect is totally seamless and 'real', and I frankly don't know how they did it in that remote pre-CGI era. But it couldn't be done better even today.
The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind (2019)
Very, very good adaptation of the true story
I have to admit that I don't see quite enough films like this one, in part because this is the sort of thing that tends not to show up at our cineplexes. So I missed this on its release (pre-pandemic) and only now saw it on Netflix (post-pandemic). It's beautiful and heartfelt. You can read the synopsis of William Kamkwambe's story in lots of places and it's surprisingly recent, from 2001, so all the main characters are very much still around. All credit to Chiwetel Ejiofor, the only 'big name' (in a Hollywood sense) for writing and directing this work and getting it onto the screen. He put himself into a supporting role in the cast, but interestingly, his character (William's father Trywell) isn't always supportive of his son. It's a hard role to play.
The rest of the excellent cast is Malawian or close to it, and they are impressive. William (played by young Maxwell Simba) captures the determination and single-mindedness that a smart teenage boy gripped by an inspiring idea (in this case to build a windmill, out of sheer scrap, to save his family farm) can have. His mother Agnes (Aissa Maiga) and sister Annie (Lily Banda) are incredibly beautiful actresses, I can't resist saying.
Above all the story shows what people can rise to do when pressed beyond any limits that humans should be asked to endure, in this case by poverty and famine. But it's also very specifically personal. Importantly, Agnes is the one who makes the key people (the school headmaster, and above all her husband Trywell) realize they must change course. It's the most difficult thing in the world for people to admit that they have been wrong. If what you've been doing isn't working, then do something different.
Where the Crawdads Sing (2022)
Beautiful adaptation of an excellent novel
I'm not sure why this film hasn't got slightly higher ratings -- personally I give it 8/10. It does take the narrative of the Delia Owens novel and trim down its complexity and full detail somewhat, but that's understandable with the need to fit it into a normal run time onscreen. What's most important is that it captures the look-and-feel of the book superbly. Rya's home, the Carolina marshland, is beautifully rendered in scene after scene. So is her origin as a child abandoned by both parents and older siblings, all due to a sullen and violent father.
Daisy Edgar-Jones as the adult Rya, and David Strathairn (excellent in every single role I've seen him do) as kindly homespun lawyer Tom Milton, are the standouts among the relatively small cast. They both show a warm humanity and deep commitment to what's right that quietly sing. And despite some necessary looks into domestic violence and small-town prejudices, it's an easy film to watch. It's gently paced and makes effective use of flashbacks to build the story.
If you've read the book, you know what's coming at the end. Here lifelong connection with the world of nature has taught Rya that "sometimes the predator must die for the prey to live". But the journey is what's important. It's a cleverly interlocked story well executed on screen. Full recommendation!
The Marvels (2023)
I enjoyed it. A shame many people are determined not to.
For this movie the TFR (troll-free rating) is 7/10, which you can see if you look at the bar graph of the viewers' ratings. I think that's about right and that's what I give it personally. It's bright and lively and brings back lots of characters from recent MCU outings, including the first Captain Marvel movie but also WandaVision and Ms Marvel, which are pretty much essential to understanding the backstory for all of them -- otherwise what's going on will seem a bit confusing. And it's always nice to see Nick Fury again, and Kamala Khan's family too.
The lead roles played by Brie Larson, Teyonah Parris, and Iman Vellani, are all fine and much of their on-screen time is spent getting to know each other (in rather different ways than three guys would do, which I appreciated). If action is what you go to see though, there's plenty of it too. If anything it's just a bit too short overall, the scene-to-scene transitions can be a bit abrupt and I would have liked some smoother continuity with more time to dig beyond surface interactions. A couple of sections (the one on the water planet whose name I forget, and the later one with all the Flerken kitties) veer off into crazyland territory, but they're still fun. Add in Zawe Ashton's role as Dar-Benn, and all four of the lead roles are women. About time.
Based on their reactions, it looks like a lot of 'fans' just want Avengers Endgame types of films all the time. But that stage of the MCU movies is gone, and it's not coming back. Not all superhero offerings have to be Major Events. We're more into the era of "ordinary superhero" movies now that aren't all tentpoles, and I don't mind that we're getting a variety of approaches and styles from different directors and studios. The Marvels fits into that category. Just go and have fun! Enjoy it for what it is.
Lessons in Chemistry (2023)
A superb adaptation of a great book. Don't miss it!
This 8-episode series gets a 10/10 from me. It's one of the best adaptations of a novel that I've ever seen -- meticulous rendering of society in the 1950's/60's with all its high and lows and the feel of transtion into a new era struggling to be born. I read the book by Bonnie Garmus before seeing this, and although I guess the true purists won't like some of the choices made in translation to the screen, I will just say ignore that. The series has to stand on its own, and it does -- spectacularly. The book is a good thing, and so is this.
Some parts of the book, like Elizabeth's time as a team rower, are there but de-emphasized, and other parts, like neighbor Harriet and her deep involvement in civil rights, are brought to the forefront. The episode on Elizabeth's rescue dog Six Thirty is wonderful (and I do NOT care that the golden-doodle breed didn't exist then -- the dog is utterly charming and fits perfectly into the narrative). Overall, though some scene-to-scene transitions feel choppy I think that's because they are trying, and by and large succeeding, at getting a lot of material in and showing how multifaceted Elizabeth's life becomes with its ups and downs and surprises. It's trying to illustrate a whole society-as-it-was and do it with enough depth that it's a real, living, time and place. Every bit of the story is engaging and after every episode I really wanted to see the next one and resented that I had to wait a week.
The cast? It's a terrific ensemble, but above all it rests on Brie Larson's shoulders. I think this is a role that genuinely suits her more than (say) Captain Marvel does -- Elizabeth Zott is cerebral, feisty, confident yet vulnerable, open yet frosty, loving yet prickly -- a challenging mix of characteristics that Larson plays compellingly. After having read the book and formed my own impression of Elizabeth, I can't think of any actress who would have done it better. Alice Halsey as young daughter Madeline is great at being a quite unselfconscious chip off the block -- so like her mother and yet neither of them quite realize it. Aja Naomi King as Harriet, Lewis Pullman as Calvin, Kevin Sussman as Walter Pine, and lots of others are just fine.
The messages if any? In no particular order what I saw was (a) life throws you curves, (b) misfits can heal each other, (c) hold on to your code when faced with oppression and fight back with integrity.
And I finally realized who Brie Larson reminds me of, looking at the 1950's hairstyles and clothing in this series: Grace Kelly, of course. If they ever decide to do a biopic of Kelly, the choice of actress for the title role is obvious.
The Accountant (2016)
Thoroughly absorbing, well constructed story
I liked this movie a lot. It's got an intricately constructed storyline, the pace is even, and the main roles are played by a first-rate cast: with Ben Affleck in the lead role, we also get Anna Kendrick, Cynthia Addai-robinson, JK Simmons, John Lithgow, Jon Bernthal, and Jean Smart. They're all excellent. I don't know what people have against Affleck -- though he'll never win an Oscar, I think he's been really effective in a steady string of decent roles.
There are some good action scenes, but the point is that they don't outweigh the storyline and character development that in the end are more important. I don't know if there is any deeper message except maybe an attempt to cast some much needed sympathetic light on autism, but it's all quite watchable on its own merit. Good storytelling never goes out of style.
Barbie (2023)
There seems to be a lot underneath the surface
The most basic touchstone for a movie that I can think of is -- is this worth seeing again? For Barbie the answer is yes. There is so much going on in the background of every scene and such incredible detail and craftmanship. I can imagine Oscars coming for set design or costuming or those kinds of awards.
It wasn't quite what I expected. For one thing, it was way more meta than even the trailers indicated. The characters not only switch back and forth from Barbieland to the Real World, but also co-exist both inside and outside the basic storyline. And there were some genuine surprises, like Rhea Perlman's captivating role as Barbie's inventor Ruth Handler, who somehow stands outside everything; and Helen Mirren's wise narrator. There's loads of fun and clever dialog built on the Barbie world, but overall, director Greta Gerwig seems to be using all this as a platform for saying things about women in society and the nature of femininity. Which is what she did in Little Women (2019) but for a different century and place. So there is a Message here that gets a bit heavy by the end, and maybe a bit dated? But that doesn't bring the whole thing down by any means.
Every part of this production is incredibly well thought out. Even the action scenes are toy-like in feel, and the dialog at times seems like it's being made up as it goes along, which is just what happens while girls play with dolls. The dance numbers have great choreography, particularly the Kens-in-black-and-white scene that brings to mind things like the Gene Kelly musicals of the 1950's.
Another surprise was America Ferrara as Gloria, the real-world and very ordinary woman trying to get along with her prickly daughter (Ariana Greenblatt). Her big scene toward the end where she lets it rip about how hard it is just to make do as a woman -- ending up with her appeal to the Mattel execs to come up with an Average Woman Barbie -- is a real highlight. And then of course there are all the Kens. Ryan Gosling expertly steals just about every scene he's in, but first and foremost, this movie is correctly about Barbie(s) and it stays that way.
The Miracle Club (2023)
A small-scale story with lovely acting
Four ladies from Balllygar, Ireland join a travel group going to Lourdes hoping for personal miracles to happen. That's it in a nutshell, but on the other hand it says almost nothing about the substance of this warm and mostly gentle film. An exceptional cast (Maggie Smith, Laura Linney, Kathy Bates, Agnes O'Casey and many fine supporting players) leads the way. These four have a complicated mutual history the threads of which intertwine and finally resolve in unlooked-for mutual forgiveness which, if there is one, is the actual miracle. They heal each other, and that's the message.
Kathy Bates and Maggie Smith do their best with strong Irish accents -- though I was left wondering why native Irish actors weren't picked (maybe the producers just wanted the star power). You might expect that Maggie Smith would steal the show, as she can do with almost anything, but she turns out to have the restraint necessary to make this a true ensemble piece. And it's actually Chrissie (Laura Linney's part) who turns out to be the crucial role in the story. Enjoy.
Asteroid City (2023)
I'm not sure how much further Wes Anderson can go along this path
Like every Wes Anderson film I enjoyed seeing it, or at least it generated some conversation afterward. What's it about? Maybe that's the wrong question. It travels along the edge of surreality from beginning to end and maybe the question should be, what's it trying to say. I think maybe the closest we get is toward the end when the main character, Augie (Jason Schwartzman) breaks through the stage-like set and in a fully surreal segment goes 'backstage'. He asks the Director (Adrian Brody) what this means, what are my lines supposed to do. He's told only that you're doing great, keep it up. I.e. -- life has no script, it feels a lot of the time like it's made up, there's no one to tell you what it means. That's about as good as I can do with it. Just as in Soul (2020), the message is that the Purpose of Life is to live it.
As with all WA films part of the fun is to see all those well known actors bouncing off each other with quirky dialog (beyond quirky here). Scarlett Johanssen is entrancing. The flat delivery of lines, the sets that look like stage backdrops, the simplified color palette all stand out here as his trademarks. It's exquisitely tailored, but I'm not sure though how much further he can go on this stylistic path. Story, Substance, and Style -- if all you are left with is Style then you can admire it but what more?
For me Anderson's high-water mark is still Moonrise Kingdom (2012). That one is a perfect, near-magical balance of story/substance/style with quirkiness to burn but deeply humanist. (And the finest end credits of any movie ever.) Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) is very fine too but at that point, style was already starting to win over those other essential elements.
Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023)
See this and enjoy the sensory overload
A well made live-action superhero movie will give you an immersive emotional experience like nothing else. But these Spiderverse films have practically redefined what can be done from the animation side of the street. I was going to say that these are like comics actually come to life, but they go beyond even that. They're not live action, they're not comics, they're not something in between. They live on a new, different plane. A large part of this is the incredible craftsmanship that clearly goes into the visuals in every scene. Frankly it's hard just to keep up, things are coming at you so fast. Coming out of the theater my eyes were spinning.
I liked the predecessor (Into the Spiderverse) very much -- it was fresh and new and the little group of Spiderfolks that dropped in from different universes was insanely clever (I think Spider Noir was my favorite and it looks like we'll get to see him again in episode number 3). But now with the 'origin story' phase of the franchise over, later instalments need to rely more on a good story. By and large it meets that test, but if I have any criticism it's just that the story falls back a bit too much in places on crazy eye-pounding visuals. It was interesting that not all the characters are animated with the same detail -- the main ones like Miles, Gwen, Miles' mother, Jessica Drew are rendered with almost photorealism while others like Miguel, Captain Stacy, or Hubie remain more roughed-in and blocky. Gwen (SpiderGwen) has taken a big step forward in her role this time, and it was a clever move to have her narrate the long Intro to the whole film, but she's still not quite the co-lead that I think she deserves to be. And then there are the many bits of laugh-out-loud fan-service references to just about any previous Spiderman version that zip by throughout.
For its consistently clever dialog, stylistic brilliance, controlled craziness, and good heart I give this 8/10. To get back to my original point, true emotional connection with the characters is just a lot easier in live-action movies, while animated ones may be easier to admire on the technical side. They're both worth seeing.
The Flash (2023)
Sasha Calle's Supergirl is the best thing about this
I went to this primarily to see Michael Keaton again as Batman, and Sasha Calle as a new version of Supergirl. Keaton was great as always -- he is such a skilful actor -- but the only problem was that he had less to do and say than I was expecting (having o/d'd on all those trailers that featured him so much). Could have used more of the best Batman ever, but obviously the scripting choices didn't go in that direction.
But now Sasha Calle's Supergirl? This Kara Zor-el is a strong, free character with her own agency who can and does stand independently of the others around her, and Calle plays her perfectly. In just a few scenes, Kara is developed as a character of depth and complexity that we end up caring about. She's the best takeway from this rather fractured movie. The Supergirl suit, adapted from the style of Henry Cavill's Superman version, is just great, and so are the renditions of her flying scenes, which I don't take for granted. For any superhero with flight as one of their powers, it's critical to get those right. Those scenes are smooth, powerful, as good or better than anything we've had before. Just the bits with her 'standing' in midair -- it all looks very natural. The battle scenes too. And it doesn't matter at all that she's not the blonde, blue-eyed version that every previous Supergirl has been as long as the nature of the character is honored. (but Nic Cage playing Superman? That's an issue.)
For the tital role, Ezra Miller is actually a capable actor, but he choice to play Barry Allen as a kind of a jittery young nerd is a big step away from the source material of the comics (or the CW TV series). That approach didn't really appeal to me in Justice League (2017) where Flash was introduced, and ultimately it' s not much better here. On the plus side, the best part of Miller's work is that the two Barry Allens from the two timelines are side by side for almost the whole thing, and it's surprisingly convincing. You forget that they are the same person. The CGI team came up with a depiction of the 'Speed Force' realm that looks different from anything on screen before, though it doesn't make sense that Flash can sort of stop and look around at different alternate timelines seen all around him while time-travelling. I see this effect is now called the 'chronobowl'. OK, whatever.
I think though there are two basic problems with the whole movie. One is just that it's coming late to the party. It's a kind of addendum to the Justice League world, but that was 6 years ago already and is now old news. By contrast, Aquaman (2018) followed JL almost immediately and benefitted from it. The second issue is just that Miller is really a character actor, not a lead-role actor. I constantly had the feeling that this was a misfit.
I've rarely felt this conflicted about a movie. For Sasha Calle's sake alone I'd like to rate this whole thing higher than I did, but the rest of it -- the details have a kind of patchwork feel which I'd guess may be the result of too many years in development and being passed around through too many hands. The bits of humor often fall flat, and the details of the plot weave their way into kind of a mess. And I have to say that I thought Kara's fate was was ugly and disturbing, suggesting that we weren't supposed to view these alternate-timeline characters as anything more than paper dolls to be thrown away whenever they liked. I felt like we'd been sucker-punched. They gave her a strong introduction, built her up into a character of real stature who we care about, then just tossed her away. That's a kind of betrayal of trust with the audience. Finally there's a riot of cameo overload and callbacks from previous DC players that puts it so far into the meta realm that there's no recovery. But that's the essential problem with the multiverse: if anything can happen, who cares what happens? (to quote Gene Siskel.) It puts emotional distance between the viewer and the characters that feels a bit unsatisfying.
Bottom line for me is, go to this to see Supergirl! Calle is the only one who comes out of this production with a well earned boost in profile, and I hope we get to see more of her, but I'm worried that we won't, unfortunately. DC has already walked away from Henry Cavill, maybe the best Superman ever. Now it feels like they're going to walk away from someone else who's also made a hit and would gladly continue if given the chance. I read that three different versions of the ending were filmed, with one of them where Kara and Keaton/Batman are alive and well back in Barry's 'original' timeline. That's the version I want to see.
Colombiana (2011)
Conventional plot, but good vehicle for Zoe Saldana
I missed this when it was released, but just saw it on Netflix -- the main reason I checked it out was for the star, Zoe Saldana, in one of her early lead roles. The plot? Fairly conventional 'revenge' storyline -- though a dozen years ago it was somewhat unusual for the protagonist to be female rather than male. As an action star, Saldana is lithe and athletic, and clever camerwork takes care of the rest. In a supporting role, Cliff Curtis playing her uncle does very well. The opening where the heroine Cataleya is a young schoolgirl witnessing her parents' death and then running from the killers through the streets of Bogota is actually one of the best sections.
There are definitely some strong elements to it all and I'd put just a bit higher than straight B-movie level. I found it odd that Saldana (who's from the West Indies) and Curtis (who's Maori) were cast as Latinos; I'm not sure that would fly today. The villains though are not much more than stock characters.
Bottom line? Quite watchable and it all finishes up satisfactorily.