Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2/5 Stars)

 

Take any 10-15 minute segment of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse and you have part of an impressive movie. But taken as a whole it is both too long and incomplete. It suffers from a bad case of evil producer strategy, whereupon the failures of the movie have less to do with the creators themselves but from certain dictates from on high that force bad decisions in terms of length and content.

A very prominent version of this can be seen in the adaptation of The Hobbit. The evil producers had it in their mind to replicate the success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and so they set out to make the new movies exactly the same in length and release strategy. The problem of course was that the source material was a novella, not three books of hundreds of pages each. And the content of the novella didn’t have the action set pieces that the trilogy of tomes had. So, in the end, The Hobbit trilogy was way too long and stuffed with a bunch of blockbuster action sequences that were boring as all hell because they weren’t in the book at all. Why this was done is obvious, the evil producers wanted to market the movies as big events, so they needed to be epic (see long) and there needed to be at least three of them so they could have three big opening weekends. I hope they liked how much money they made immediately because no one in their right mind would ever see those movies again, or for the first time, now. I didn’t bother to watch the third. (In that one, they take a single chapter and draw it out for three hours).

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse has this same sort of problem. It is a sequel to the well thought out and executed 2019 standalone feature Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, but unlike that movie, it starts with a marketing strategy and then tries to fit a story to it, not the other way around. At 2 hours twenty minutes it is way too long and then it ends on a cliffhanger because apparently it wasn't long enough.

Again, take any ten or fifteen minute segment of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse and you have what could be part of a good movie. The animation in particular is striking and impressive in its attention to detail and multitude of forms. Like the original (and now live-action Spider-Man too), the spider-people live in a concurrent multi-verse. These multi-verse each have their own art style. The main version, wherein Miles Morales (aka Black Spider-Man) is our hero, is curated in Brooklyn neo-realism. Another version, with Gwen Stacy (aka Spider Woman) is curated in impressionistic pastels. A villain named the Vulture seems to pop out of a universe styled in the writings of Leonardo Da Vinci. Spider-Punk is made out of british paper-mache.

All of these are good artistic ideas that are well done. It’s just that there is too much of it and not enough actual plot. Action sequences go on too long. Even when the movie is out of an action sequence and it's just normal exposition, there is still a lot of action. In one scene with plenty of background exposition, the characters are actually webbing their way through the city at great speed. The thing is, this occurs right after an overlong action sequence, so we are going from action sequence to action sequence to action sequence. Even word-play jokes are set against a scene of blockbuster action. Did you know that Chai is Indian for Tea? And that when you say Chai Tea you are actually saying Tea Tea? You are not laughing, is it because you are distracted by that skyscraper falling/crashing into the Brooklyn Bridge. The action sequences would have felt more exciting if the movie wasn’t wall to wall with them. And certain dramatic moments would have worked better without all this sound and fury. A big reveal involving the emotions of several main characters takes place during a chase and fight on a bullet train racing up a space elevator. Why? Why do it like that?

When the movie does slow down, it slows down a lot, and in repetitive fashion. How many scenes do we really need of a teenager trying to talk to their parents and getting frustrated. I would be happy with one scene per teenager and set of parents. In this movie, there must be at least 5-10 scenes of that kind of thing.

The thing is, these overlong action sequences and all these frustrating scenes where teenagers are not able to communicate with their parents are the same thing: the movie stalling for time, trying to get to an EPIC length and the cliffhanger to set up the next movie. I for one will not be seeing the next movie. I don’t need to see it to know that they could have combined its story into this one resulting in one good movie instead of two way too long bad ones. (I do not understand why evil producers have this strategy. You can always make more movies. Just look at the James Bond franchise.)

This movie doesn’t even have Spider-Ham in it. What a disappointment.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (5/5 Stars)

A love poem to Civilization

There is a moment in “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” that stands out to me. Our hero, M. Gustave (played by Ralph Fiennes) the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel has been unjustly imprisoned for the murder of his frequent hotel guest and late lover played by Tilda Swinton. His loyal lobby boy, Zero (introducing Tony Revolori) conspires to help him escape. He engages his fiancé/baker’s apprentice played by Saorise Ronan to hide metal tools in the pastries he regularly sends to his mentor. Unfortunately every gift from outside must pass the rigorous inspection of the prison, i.e. a big man with a big butcher’s knife who unceremoniously cuts up everything that comes his way. But behold when this big man with this big knife sees these pastries so elegantly crafted with grace and artistry his heart grows and melts. He cannot bear to destroy them and lets the pastries (and the escape tools) pass onto our hero. And if this one scene was all you saw you should know from experience by now that you are in a Wes Anderson movie.

‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’ is another masterpiece. That makes two in a row for Wes Anderson who is absolutely flaming red hot right now. Arguably it is his best film. When I reviewed ‘Moonrise Kingdom’ I outlined Anderson’s improvements in his style over his first six movies. Namely that he had cast actors in sufficiently dramatic roles with enough stage presence to burst through his overly saturated and inevitably stifling style. Second that he had provided his film with an actual climax and not an existential sigh of an ending. Third: that he had switched from telling the stories of rich people with bullshit problems to poor people with actual problems. All of that is here in this story. We have Wes Anderson’s best villain to date, an evil Adrian Brody, intent on usurping justice, stealing his inheritance, and killing those who get in his way. He employs a hit man played by Willem Defoe. In addition almost everyone employs colorful language. This is a must in a Wes Anderson film. It shocks one out of the sublime contemplation of the art direction and refocuses attention on the characters. The climax of the story involves not only a sled race down a snowy mountain but also a shootout in the hotel. Also there is the aforementioned break out from the prison, which involves some ingenious sight gags. And the story is about the servants of a hotel, in particular a refugee lobby boy whose entire family was killed during World War I.

On On top of all of this Wes Anderson has added something extra special that has never before graced his movies. He has added reason and purpose to his overly stylized approach. In this movie it is called for from the story itself, not simply because this is a movie made by Wes Anderson. First, the story is told in several flashbacks. The movie starts off with a girl in present day reading a book by the statue of its author, a hero of the Eastern European Country she is resident. The movie moves into a flashback of the elderly author played by Tom Wilkinson who starts telling us the story of how he came upon the story as a young man. The movie flashbacks to Jude Law, the younger version of the author, who is staying at the now decript communist version of the hotel when he meets the now elderly lobby boy played by F. Murray Abraham. The two have a catered dinner in the ballroom of the hotel and F. Murray Abraham narrates his story. All throughout these several flashbacks the production design of the movie gets more and more fanciful till it becomes clear when we get to the lobby boy’s story that we are witnessing a visual game of telephone. The story is real but the telling of it has become overly stylized as it has been passed on from generation to generation. Obviously the invading force is made up of Nazis although they are not named so in the movie. And surely the Grand Budapest Hotel did not look so pink and red or so much like a minature model in real life. It’s costuming has been the work of several permutations of the same tale over the course of time.

Second and more importantly the movie has a philosophy on why such costuming is important even noble. The little niceties of civilized life, the grandeur of the lobby, the manners and rituals of a many course meal, the way the hotel staff righteously guards the privacy of their guests, all are contrasted with the barbaric cruelties presented in this time period of epic slaughter. At a particularly dark time in the story, the tale is interrupted by the serving of a dessert and a special desert wine. And it is a relief. The comforting ritual is an escape from the random slaughter of the outside world. Somewhere someone cares about your experience. That is what the ‘Grand Budapest Hotel’ means. It is a precious love poem to civilization. It is the prison guard that can’t bring himself to destroy something so beautiful.

We live in a world that so often takes the most cynical route possible because it is the easiest and perhaps the most truthful. But Wes Anderson cares about your movie going experience. He has made this extra special gem just for you as a brief escape from all the nihilistic meanness out there. This movie has love poured into every detail of the story and production.

What enormous amount of respect Wes Anderson commands in the Hollywood community now! Just take a look at this cast most of which are in very bit parts. Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, Ed Norton, Bill Murray, Bob Balaban, Adrien Brody, Tilda Swinton, Mathieu Amalric, Harvey Keitel, Willem Defoe, Jeff Goldblum, Lea Seydoux, Tom Wilkinson, F. Murray Abraham, Jude Law, Ralph Fiennes, Saorise Ronan, and introducing Tony Revolori. Apparently most of them just wanted to hang out on the set because the atmosphere excited them. I’ve heard that Wes Anderson employs a friend chef of his who cooks a great meal for dinner for everybody in the production every night of shooting. If tickets were sold to these dinners they would be priceless.

One more thing: Tom Wilkinson’s character speaks about writing not as a solo art but as the result of merely being open to the ideas and stories of those around you. Well, Wes Anderson may deflect admiration all he wants but one thing is for certain. He can be credited with recruiting an incredible team around him. The production design of this movie was led by Adam Stockhausen (also worked on Moonrise Kingdom). The art direction was led by Stephan O. Gessler, Gerald Sullivan, and Steve Summersgill. The set decoration was led by Anna Pinnock. The costumes were made by Milena Canonero. If they aren’t remembered come Oscar time next year, it isn’t my bad taste; everybody else are uncivilized barbarians. 

Moonrise Kingdom (5/5 Stars)

“Let’s make an inventory”

Says Sam Schukusky to Suzy Bishop, once the two twelve year olds have successfully run away from their respective adults (parents for Suzy, a junior khaki troop for Sam) to elope on the New England island of Penzance. And make an inventory they do. Suzy is carrying her brother’s record player with extra batteries, her favorite LP, her pet kitten, several of her favorite science fiction books, her lucky left-handed scissors, and her much-loved set of binoculars. She carefully explains why each item is important. And if you haven’t guessed already, this scene is taking place in a movie written/directed by Wes Anderson, because, really, who else would have characters take the time to do an inventory of the things they are carrying. I mean, if it isn’t a war movie and the characters aren’t talking strategy and weapons, an inventory is almost unheard of in movies. This is just one particular touch, along with absurdly detailed set designs and costumes, obsessively neat and tidy dialogue, and super-controlled camera shots, that scream out that you are in that most distinctive of styles, Wes Anderson cinema. No other movie looks or works quite the way his do.

Now this does not automatically mean that his movies are good, in fact it has been a decade since he made a movie that needed seeing. The distinctive style that makes his films stand out also tend to undermine the story and move it toward the unfortunate territory of boredom. But, I’ve always felt there was a great movie just waiting to be made by the guy, and I’m glad to say he has finally made it. “Moonrise Kingdom,” is one of the best movies of the year. It succeeds in all the places his earlier movies have failed without sacrificing any of the trademark idiosyncrasies that make Anderson films such unique experiences. 

First the two kids are genuinely likable and may have some actual problems. I would like to emphasize the word “actual” here because so many of Anderson’s characters don’t have actual problems. They are generally well-to-do good-looking people afflicted with a type of depressing boredom or something. Like for instance, the three brothers in “the Darjeeling Limited” had unexplained father "issues" so they went on a long train ride in India to bond. Being able to afford to go on a long train ride in India to bond with family isn’t exactly evidence of a real world problem. I would guess that’s why so many of these characters tend to suffer quietly in whispers. They seem to be some acknowledgement that it is kind of pathetic to be unhappy while blessed by their relative circumstances. Anyway, this isn’t something to worry about in this story. Sam Shukusky is an orphan recently dumped by his latest foster parents and Suzy Bishop is emotionally disturbed. Or at least she has good reason to think she might be. She found a pamphlet entitled, “Coping with the Very Troubled Child,” on the top of her refrigerator, which is admittedly a kind of a freaky thing to find in your house. Neither have any friends, but they do like each other, and their love story is sweet and touching.

It takes a certain kind of skill to act effectively in a Wes Anderson movie. There is always a temptation to softly speak in long pauses. Take for instance Gwyneth Paltrow’s character in “The Royal Tenenbaums.” This however is a boring mistake. Instead the exact opposite needs to be done. An actor needs to fit in as many yells as possible within the tight framework of stilted dialogue. This is essentially the only way to break through the gorgeous/suffocating style to achieve some sort of catharsis and why an action blockbuster star like Bruce Willis, playing the island police officer, is a much better casting choice than a mellow guy like Owen Wilson. Otherwise an actor needs the jujitsu comedy skills of a guy like Bill Murray, also present playing Suzy's father, who has the unique ability to take the style and subtly play it against itself by under-under-playing his performance, see the scene with the axe and the little kids. We’ve got some passionate speakers here. Edward Norton, Jason Schwartzman and Harvey Keitel, as scoutmasters, put in a ridiculous degree of professionalism in directing boy scouts. Frances McDormand doesn’t yell but carries around a bullhorn and uses it whenever she speaks. 

It's all done very well. Someone here between Murray, Willis, Norton, and Schwartzman deserves an Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actor but I can’t really decide who deserves it more than the others. A safe choice is Bruce Willis, who in his very long career has amazingly never received any real recognition for anything. Given his perfect performances in great movies such as “Die Hard,” “Pulp Fiction,” “The Sixth Sense,” and "Sin City" he is a bit overdue. For all his machoness, he has done some of his best work with children, and there is a scene here with the orphan Sam after he has been caught, separated from his love, and notified that his foster parents do not want him back that contains every correct thing you can say said in all the correct ways in such a situation.

Lastly, Wes Anderson has finally figured out how to end his movies on a high note. This movie has an exciting third act with an honest to god action sequence that doesn’t have some winking existential sigh of a conclusion. (Contrast this with “The Life Aquatic,” and his weird decision not to blow up the tiger shark with dynamite as planned.) In other words, the movie like so many other Wes Anderson previous efforts doesn’t run out of steam before the end. This is probably his crowning achievement and what makes this movie his best movie yet. (I will forever love “Rushmore” more yes, but that is strictly for personal not critical reasons, like say, the main character’s name being Max)

When you have a style that is especially distinctive (like say Altman or Kubrick) it is especially hard to judge your movie because they are so unlike anything else. So it would not come as a surprise to me if “Moonrise Kingdom” was completely ignored come Oscar time. It shouldn’t be though. Among the more obvious things it should be acknowledged for are the original score by Alexandre Desplat (you may remember him from “The Tree of Life”), and the art direction by Gerald Sullivan. The not so obvious things would be a nomination for best director for Wes Anderson and best original screenplay for Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola. And why not, nods for cinematography, editing, and Bruce Willis. It should go without saying that a Best Picture nod is called for as this is one of the best movies of the year.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (3/5 Stars) December 23, 2009

How quaint.

Wes Anderson directs this stop motion animated children’s tale based on Roald Dahl’s book Fantastic Mr. Fox. It had been my belief after watching Anderson’s first films like Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, and The Royal Tenenbaums, that someday Anderson would make an American masterpiece. Three not so great movies later, this one being the best of them, I have become somewhat disheartened. Wes Anderson may have a unique vision as a director, he may be one of the best art directors out there, but all of his stories lack that certain amount of passion that sets great movies apart from ordinary ones. All of the characters, whether real-life or animated as in this film, walk and talk with great reserve and sophistication. This lends to the movies irony and dry bone wit but it also takes away from the urgency of the problems and the weight of the plot. Actors in his movies walk around like robots and talk in whispers. (The special exception is Jason Schwartzman who can deliver Anderson’s muted lines with such precise intensity that they can sound somewhat purpose-driven.) Making everyone a stop-motion puppet doesn’t really help. What does help is an adapted storyline that involves a lot of guns, bombs, and very bad men. But still, the overall movie is somewhat forgettable. 

It must not take much time and effort from Actors to do an animated film. That must be why so many big names can be attached to a single film. Here we have George Clooney as Mr. Fox, Meryl Streep as Mrs. Fox, and Jason Schwartman as Ash Mr. Fox’s son. Filling in roles that have but a few lines are Willem Defoe and Owen Wilson. Most of these actors lend little to the parts more than their names. For instance this is perhaps the first time in a long time that I saw Meryl Streep perform in a movie and thought, “wow, anyone could do this role just as well as Meryl Streep.”

The idea of stop-motion animation plays to Anderson’s strengths. He has a great knack for filling in the sides of the movie screen with a lot of little details. Here, he recreates an entire world full of mean farmers, fox-holes, and plenty of other locations. He uses the camera a lot of differently than other stop motion animators also (Basically just Tim Burton) He uses much more horizontal pans and other camera moves I don’t know the names of. It’s at least interesting to witness if you are ever aware of that sort of thing.

The music in the film is also fine. I don’t know whatever happened to Mark Mothersbaugh, the great composer for Anderson’s first three films, but wherever he is, he is being missed. Anderson has such a reserved vision that he very much needs composers that are bold, actors (like Schwartzman) who are passionate, and storylines that have a lot of action in them. Here all he has is the adapted screenplay from Dahl. Schwartzman can hardly be used to his potential because he a stop-motion doll, and the composer though okay, has a boy’s choir sing the bad guy’s theme song. Someday Anderson may get all of his ducks in a row, but this isn’t the movie and I am starting to doubt it will be his next either.

Funny People (3/5 Stars) August 26, 2009

Death by Penis Jokes! 


The third movie from Writer/Director/Producer Judd Apatow is “Funny People,” starring Adam Sandler as a rich and famous comedian who has just received news from his doctor that he has a terminal illness, a newly thinned Seth Rogen as an up and coming stand up comic that Sandler hires as his assistant, and Leslie Mann as Sandler’s “one who got away.” Rounding out a strong supporting cast are Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman as Rogen’s fellow standup comic roommates, Eric Bana as the Mann’s Aussie husband, and Aubrey Plaza as Rogen’s love interest. There are also an impressive number of cameos by other comics playing themselves like Andy Dick, Paul Reiser, Norm MacDonald, Dave Attell, and Sarah Silverman. Inexplicably Marshall Mathers (Eminem) also shows in one scene where he impressively rants about the annoyances that come with being a celebrity and tells an eavesdropping Ray Romano to go “Go F*** Himself.” As in ‘Knocked Up,’ Apatow’s own daughters play the children. Both of them do a good job of acting like they are Leslie Mann’s (who is Apatow’s wife) actual children. 

The title notwithstanding, this movie is not a comedy. It is a drama that happens to be about comedians. Since comedians have a tendency to draw on their lives’ tragedies to produce humor, this movie has many jokes in it. But the jokes in this movie don’t work like the jokes in a regular comedy. In a regular comedy the jokes would work for the purpose of making the tragedy somehow okay by various techniques. Perhaps the best example of a joke making DEATH okay is King Arthur’s fight with the Black Knight in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” A more modern example is South Park’s Kenny being murdered in almost every single episode for several seasons. These jokes take the big topic of DEATH and belittle it by absurdly suggesting that a) it doesn’t hurt (Tis’ but a flesh wound!) and b) it isn’t necessarily terminal (OMG they killed Kenny…Again!). In this movie, jokes are made about death, but they aren’t successful in belittling it. The story wants us to take George Simmons (Sandler) terminal illness seriously. There is one scene where this is especially telling. Ira Wright (Rogen) has brought upon himself to make George an itunes list of reflective songs to help him cope with the illness. Simmons asks to hear some of them and jokes about how hokey and phony the first two are. Then Rogen puts one on that is undeniably moving. George finds his mind blanking on jokes, is reminded of why Ira made the list, and angrily berates him as he storms out of the room. Let the record show that Adam Sandler can be a nuanced actor when he feels like it.

I would compare the experience of watching this movie to the experience of watching Scorsese’s “Casino.” Let me explain myself. I could tell the movie had top-notch directing, editing, casting, acting, and writing. The creators knew the material inside and out. The stand up routines that were meant to be funny were actually funny. The pathos made sense. Technically speaking, everything seemed to be fine about this movie. The problem is that “Funny People” is an especially long movie about essentially miserable characters. George Simmons is an isolated and alienated comedian who lives alone in a huge house that seems to be useful only for attracting groupies for one night stands. He has to pay Ira to be his assistant and confidante. He constantly berates him about his last name and private parts. For the whole movie it seems that George is not learning any lessons from his illness. His first act after learning he is may be well is to get back the woman that ‘got away’ i.e. he cheated on her and she left. He does this by attempting to breakup a troubled marriage. That guy can be quite a vicious clown. It simply isn’t easy to feel sorry for a rich and famous dude who lives in a mansion and treats other people like shit. 

Seth Rogen also plays against his usual “Seth Rogen” oafish confident type. Having lost a lot of weight, his character Ira Wright seems a whole ten years younger than his usual fat self. He plays the guy young, starstruck, and way over his head. If there is an arc to this movie than it is in this character because he seems to be the only person who changes any. He goes from idolizing George Simmons, to doubting him, to finally willing to throw away any perks he could have gotten career wise just to tell the guy off. It is probably a shame that the movie focused on George Simmons so much because the heart of this story is in the coming-of-age tale of Ira Wright. Seth Rogen may have struggled at the box office this year, but in consecutive movies he has acted against type in two very different roles and has performed admirably in both of them. (the other being ‘Observe and Report’)

Also worth a special mention is Aubrey Plaza who has very little screen time as a struggling fellow standup comic but gives the most memorable performance in the movie. She is introduced cynically enough. The Jason Schwartzman character, a successful comic with his own TV show, brings her home and gives Ira ten days to ask her out or he will sleep with her. Three weeks later, after Ira has only gotten a tentative date set up with her to see a Wilco concert, Schwartzman sleeps with her. Ira doesn’t get mad at Schwartzman (because hey, he said he would give him ten days and ended up giving him twenty one.). He instead gets mad at Aubrey. Here is where the movie makes an interesting choice. Instead of simply using the scene to allow the audience to get vicarious revenge on groupies who sleep too willingly with stars, the movie gives the woman an impressive and ultimately sad retort, and Aubrey knocks the scene out of the park. What we come to understand is that two fundamentally good people who may have had a chance of being together, but feel that they have to compromise themselves because they are bottom feeders in a business that seems to arbitrarily pull some people up and keep others down. It is such a sad scene. Aubrey’s performance is, in my opinion, good enough for a Supporting Actress Nomination. Sometimes one scene is enough. 

Marie Antoinette 10/04/06

fresh: This is a perfect movie. As good as they come and as well made as they get. Like Gandhi or Mozart never will there be another movie about Marie Antionette. An ace in the hole this one is. It's perfect and complete. There is no need for another.
Why do I love it so: Two good reasons. Here we have a subject much like Paris Hilton, but instead of making fun of a person like that here we are invited to sympathise. This movie is not a criticism of Marie Antoinette as it easily could have been (How many of us bad mouth Paris Hilton), it is just a picture into her life. Her exhorbitant, extravagant, ridiculously dreamy life.
Sofia Coppola does an incredible feat and pulls off a story about a person who basically does nothing and is about nothing but lives in the most extravagant place in the world. I'm of course talking about the palace of Versailles, where the movie was shot. By the way, if there ever was a lock on oscar nods for costume, makeup, set design, and cinematography this movie has it. It is one of the best looking movies ever made. Having said that here's another feat. We have all these great specatacles but none of them overwhelm the story. ln fact most of the jokes are subtle, and brought to our attention by the great acting chops of Kirsten Dunst (who I haven't liked all that much in the past) and Jason Schwartzman (who is quickly becoming a seriously respected actor) who have the confidence to underplay their roles in order to create an absurdist atmosphere between the normal people they are and the ridiculous wealth that is bestowed upon them. For us history buffs, recognition of those tiny bits of reality that poke their head into the movie at various times are especially gratifying.
All of this goes back to Sofia Coppola's direction. From what I saw this movie is flawless. From the transitions through montages to the modern rock music to the unabashed American accents, everything works in this film. Like her fathere she has great visual style and although I probably could not quote a great deal of lines from the movie, I could describe many a great shot of artistic and visual delights from ballroom dancing, to morning breakfast, to fireworks, to sunrises. Many people complained about the lack of a guillotine but I think the last shot says it all. I didn't find anything at all wrong with it.
Here's the second reason. Not only is this movie great, it's important. It's important because this type of movie is very rare. It is about a woman written and directed by a woman. It has a feminime touch to it. Not saying that this is better just saying its not prevalent. As we know most movies are about men, they are directed by men and they are written by men. Even in a movie about Queen Elizabeth or Joan of Arc, most of the characters are men. This movie is different. Most of the supporting characters are woman. This is great since it gives great character actresses such as Molly Shannon and Asia Argento worth while roles that usually don't exist. 
I was not completely blown away by "Lost in Translation" but this movie proved to me that Sofia has earned a seat at the table with all the other A-list directors. I'm calling at least an Oscar nod for her directing. Best picture nod might be a stretch.