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.

Dune (5/5 Stars)

 

Frank Herbert’s epic novel “Dune” has long been the white whale of movie adaptations. After its popular publication in 1965, several filmmakers have attempted an adaptation only for their efforts to more or less fail. Jodorowky had great ambitions but lacked funding. This became the subject of a 2013 documentary. In 1984, director David Lynch successfully produced a feature film of the book, an absolute mess of confusing exposition and fast forward plot which stood as an expensive warning to the impossibility of a coherent adaptation for over three decades. I tried to watch that movie and did not venture past the first twenty minutes. The overarching problem, once solved, is Dune’s greatest strength. Dune is a fascinating, exotic and dangerous world, but in order to tell a story of anything that occurs there, much world-building needs to occur. The 1984 version attempted to accomplish this through voiceover, a tedious succession of name dropping that succeeded in explaining thousands of years of fiction, but not why the viewer should care. Like I said, I lasted twenty minutes.

It is then with considerable acclamation that I report that this Dune, directed by Denis Villenueve, is a coherent and dramatic work of art. Yes, I understood what was going on and the exposition was paced in such a way that it did not bore me. That is not an easy feat to accomplish. I am not about to try to explain the plot in depth here. Like I said, that is a near impossible task, but I can attempt the briefest of outlines: “Dune” is a story about power, a struggle between an emperor which we do not meet, several of his vassal states, a mystical sect, and an indigenous tribe of a desert world that holds the galaxy’s most valuable resource. The emperor sets his vassals against each other to weaken them, and fight and weaken each other they do.

The vassals connive and maneuver against each other in elegant architecture, dressed in impressive fashion and surrounded by distinctive cinematography. There are also very ugly bad guys and gigantic sand worms. The look and feel of “Dune” is an artistic achievement. Denis Villeneuve, I’m sure, is a great part of that process having already made several of the best looking films of the past decade with the great cinematography Roger Deakins: “Prisoners”, “Sicario”, and “Blade Runner 2049”. I half-expected Roger Deakins to be present here, but he is not. The cinematographer is instead Greig Fraser, who I did not know on a name basis before, but whose work I have admired in “Zero Dark Thirty” “Foxcatcher” and “Lion” (He also did this thing I’ve heard of “The Mandalorian” but which I have not seen).

As striking as the architecture, fashion, and cinematography, is the excellent cast which is filled with interesting actors like Oscar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarskgard, Javier Bardem, Zendaya, David Dastmalchian and Timothee Chalamet (presently having his breakout moment). It is a truth acknowledged in movies that the best way to procure a great cast is to make each character a main character in the scene that they find themselves in. This is usually done in one of two ways: have an episodic story in which the main characters in each part are not the same actors, or to have a character’s arc begin and completely end within the movie. I don’t necessarily mean kill the character, but good actors that have many different plans and options for work I believe will be more willing to take a bit part in a larger story if they know they don’t have to stick around for the entirety of the production. With the risk of making this paragraph even more of a spoiler than I’ve already made it, I will only say further that I believe it will be difficult for Dune Part Two to have as good a cast as Part One.

As I said, I will not bother trying to explain the plot. I will merely state that Dune mainly concerns itself with power. There are not democracies or republics present. Just empires, feudal lords, religious cults and native tribes. Frank Herbert seemed to understand the dynamics present quite well. We are somewhat removed from the contours of this world and the behaviors that inhabit it, but part of what makes science fiction fun, is that you can set up your own rules and see how people act within the made up system. Sometimes this is as pretentious as you think it would be and the science fiction element seems to just be a disguise for a straw man argument (say Star Trek or The Twilight Zone). Other times, you get something like Dune, which is so different, it hardly seems to be a commentary on anything on Earth. Earth details may have inspired it, but it is its own thing, content to have its message stay on its desert planet. It has nothing to do with anything else. It is pure escapism, which brings with its own type of pleasure.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2/5 Stars)

In my review of Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, I stated that the quality of Episode VIII would rely on how Episode IX resolved the interesting questions that were raised. I found especially intriguing the idea that Rey would not be related to any of the other main characters, this usually being a prerequisite for importance in a Star Wars movie. The idea posited was that the Force is self-balancing. In this way, a being that was either very light or very dark would naturally bring about their opposite at some other place in the universe. With this understanding, Luke Skywalker felt it prudent to leave behind the force altogether in order to not further provoke more Sith Lords.

It turns out none of this matters or even happened, which kind of renders both Episode VIII and Episode IX pointless, which in turn renders Episode VII pointless too. To watch this new trilogy is to watch the most expensive interplay between bad improvisors in the history of movies. At the very least, as things were being made up as they went along, the contributors could have abided by the first and only important rule of improvisation, “Yes And…” That is if you are to not have a plan, the very least you can do is not undercut your fellow collaborators. This basic concept is lost on the director of the Episode VII and Episode IX J.J. Abrams and the director of VIII, Rian Johnson.

For certain movies, a warning against spoilers is warranted. “Parasite” is a good example. Its plot twists are nonobvious and are brought about with Hitchcockian suspense that is quite pleasurable to experience in the moment. For other movies, warnings against spoilers behaves more like a marketing tool. By begging reviewers to not allow spoilers, the mega corporations involved keep away from the audience certain unimaginative details that would be complete let-downs if revealed.

For instance, Rey is not a total nobody as presented in Episode VIII. Actually, she is the granddaughter of Emperor Palpatine from “Return of the Jedi”. What a let-down. That sound is the most interesting development in Episode VIII hitting the bottom of the dust-bin. What is more disappointing is the reason why Rey is a Palpatine. It seems entirely do with the decision to hew as closely to the structure and development of the plot of “Return of the Jedi” as possible. Looking back, I don’t see why I expected anything less. After all, Director J.J. Abrams did the same thing with Episode VII, making that movie’s plot an almost retread of Episode IV: A New Hope and Director Rian Johnson did the same thing with Episode VIII, making that movie’s plot structure a retread of Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.

It should be noted that Director J.J. Abrams is once more complicit in the murder of billions of people. With an amazing lack of originality, a weapon that destroys planets has been developed by the bad guys. Mr. Abrams once more shows no hesitation at all in using this weapon, incinerating a planet as an afterthought and not particularly caring about treating the aftermath with the sort of respect that should be called for amongst such an extraordinary loss of life. The movie, like all Disney movies, is PG-13, because there is not a hint of sex involved anywhere. Even Poe, played by Oscar Isaac, the Han Solo-ish character, is not getting lucky anytime soon. A sad development given that he is instrumental in saving the galaxy by the end of the movie.

There are certain things about this movie that do not come remotely close to making sense. However, it is hard to talk about them in a critical manner because the movie moves so fast from plot point to plot point that it hardly matters what has just happened. “Look Something Shiny and New,” is the name of the game here. When the original Star Wars trilogy came out, the critics wailed about its reliance on special effects and lack of character development. What glory days those were, when characters engaged each other in half a minute-long conversations and military tactics, however limited, were considered. In Episode IV, the main characters land a ship in the Death Star and by subterfuge, loosely defined, rescued the princess. Here, the main characters land a ship in an enemy star destroyer and the first thing they do is come out guns blazing as if three people with blasters could take down a gigantic ship by brute force. The original trilogy at least gave the audience certain outs for unlikely scenarios. To experience this trilogy without rolling your eyes you must be a total idiot.

The ending bespeaks a recent trend in the ever-escalating stupidity of movie villains. Like the army of the undead in “Game of Thrones”, the evil forces here are both impossibly powerful and also can be take down with the capture of a single target. I would posit that fair fights that are resolved by strategy are more interesting that lopsided battles won by technicalities. But this idea is lost on the makers of Star Wars.

There is a bright spot in this movie and that is the basically good acting of Adam Driver as Kylo Ren and Daisy Ridley as Rey. This is helped by a storyline that gives these characters things to do and emotions to develop. The same cannot be said for the characters of Poe, played by Oscar Isaac, or Finn, played by John Boyega. They do not do anything in this movie but run around from plot point to plot point. From the promise of Episode VII, it is rather disappointing that Poe and Finn do not ultimately have interesting story arcs. However, at least these characters had the promise of an interesting story arc. There are several characters in this trilogy who were introduced and then promptly forgotten. Rosie, a seemingly important character in Episode VIII hardly shows up in Episode IX (Maybe the focus groups found that the world was not ready for a Black-Asian romance). Benicio Del Toro from Episode VIII does not appear at all in IX. Domnhall Gleeson has a fate that suggests he wasn’t willing to work for more than a week. Keri Russell literally phones it in, perhaps only showing up to work for one day to dub the lines for her bemasked minor character. Several other characters are introduced in this episode seemingly for the limited purpose of introducing new series on Disney+. But is there actually a plan to make these series or are these scenes just bait for the focus groups where the real decisions would be made? If that series starring Lando Calrissian does not come to fruition, Episode IX will harbor an utterly pointless scene in a few years’ time.

There is a way to plan out a franchise and that way was ably demonstrated by Marvel over the past decade. Not every movie in the Marvel franchise is a must-see-most-important-installment-of-the-franchise movie. Most movies focus on a single character which in coordination with other smaller movies build into the bigger spectacle movies every four or five years. Star Wars has not done this. The sad thing is that it probably could have. What really helped Marvel was its library of over fifty years of comic book storylines that the movies could pick and choose plots from. Star Wars has a library substantially similar to this: four decades of books written by professional fans and blessed as canon by George Lucas. None of this material was considered for Episodes VII, VIII, or IX. Why?

Corporate cynicism comes to mind. The new trilogy is the same thing as the old, but with better special effects and a more diverse cast. Why take a risk making something new, when you can repackage the old as a presentation to international audiences unfamiliar with the old movies. The global marketplace is where the real movie is made. My appetite for Star Wars has officially been sated. I do not plan on seeing any further of these movies in theaters. 

The Last Jedi (4/5 Stars)

The merit of “The Last Jedi” will be reassessed when the third movie of the new trinity comes out. There are several interesting developments in this movie. The question is whether they are going to lead anywhere. I feel like I have been in this place before. I am reminded of the middle seasons of LOST and “the Girl who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.” These were incomplete but intriguing stories. However the later installments could not fill in the holes. This might be the sad fate of “the Last Jedi” too.

For those who have seen “The Empire Strikes Back” many times, the structure of “The Last Jedi” should seem very familiar. Like “The Empire Strikes Back” most of the characters are fleeing the bad guys while one person is engaged in Jedi training. This happens in “The Last Jedi”. Poe, Finn, and the last of the rebellion are fleeing General Hux’s large battle fleet while Rey seek Jedi training with Luke Skywalker. There is a difference however that renders uneven the first half of the movie. Unlike “The Empire Strikes Back” the fleeing characters have no respite from the pursuing forces, like say hiding out in an asteroid field. Thus, it seems like the time period in which the movie takes place is much shorter than the previous film. Although technically this may seem like it would make the movie more exciting, it also makes less sense. After all, Rey’s Jedi training seems to be a week or a month long at the most, whereas it seemed like Luke Skywalker had at least a year in “The Empire Strikes Back.” The movie then would seem to be wielding a rather liberal view of how a person with force abilities would be able to attain the abilities of a Jedi master. There is a decent if not completely satisfying explanation to this and it is one of the more interesting features of this installment.

Like “The Empire Strikes Back”, “The Last Jedi” expands the audience’s understanding of the Force (this is bound to create seas of unrest amongst fans who like religious zealots already believe they know all there is to know about the Force). As Luke Skywalker seems to be explaining it, the Force is not something individuals attain. It is a force that exists within the very fabric of the universe. It has two sides, dark and light, but neither are its natural state, which is a balance. If a Jedi or Sith were to use the Force, the Force would create an opposite to render balance to the universe. A person who wants to use the Force for good, may end up making things worse because to use the light side of the Force is to create a Sith who uses the dark side. Perhaps then the wise thing to do is to not use the Force at all, which is why Luke Skywalker closed himself off from it and exiled himself to the furthest part of the galaxy. Because the only ones using the Force in the world at the time of “The Last Jedi” are the Dark Sith Lord Snoke and the Sith Lord Kylo Ren, a very strong opposite has emerged in Rey, which may be the reason why her training is so very brief. Maybe.

It is hard to tell where a more nuanced understanding of the Force will lead a franchise that is so ingrained in the notion of a fight between good and evil. This episode seems to be deliberately muddying the waters of such a black and white vision. The most interesting and confusing character is Kylo Ren (played by Adam Driver) who seems to be oscillating somewhere between the light and dark side of the force, not exactly sure of which path to follow. Where he ends up and whether it makes sense will decide whether this trilogy is a good one.

The least interesting person in the first film, Rey (played by Daisy Ridley) also became more nuanced and interesting in this one. As I mentioned in my review of “The Force Awakens” the Star Wars movies are generally guilty of blockbuster narcissism in which large events are dictated by a few familial connections. However, it is revealed in this movie that Rey does not have a connection with anyone. If Kylo Ren is to be believed, she is a nobody from nowhere. I love that. That is great. It unties Rey from any kind of pre-ordained fate. Kylo Ren seems to feel like he should be a Sith because his grandfather was Darth Vader. However, Rey could probably be whatever she ultimately decides to be. It is impossible for me to tell how her arc in the last film will go.

The “Star Wars” franchise still propels its weird relationship with violence. “The Last Jedi” in particular seems to consider the futility of violence while showing as much of it as possible. The majority of characters introduced in the “The Force Awakens” met violent deaths by the end of “The Last Jedi”. For those looking between the lines, this has the tendency to render the lighthearted moments of these movies in a rude light. Some of the battles feel like World War I suicide missions. At one point Poe Dameron (played by Oscar Isaac) decides that it is best to retreat than keep moving forward. He does this after most of his comrades in arms have been blown to smithereens. A decent leader would probably have made the retreat decision before sending most of the army to its death. Furthermore, because there is no policy discussion that would enable the viewer to tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, the war may as well be about the colors of their uniforms. In any case, I felt several times in this movie that the good guys should have probably just given up. That may have been the point of this movie, which will be expanded further in the last one. Or the last of the trilogy may simply feature a battle in which the good guys win (like “The Return of the Jedi”). That would be the obvious thing to do, but it would also render stupid all the interesting points that were made in “The Last Jedi.” Like I said before, much is hinging on how all of this is resolved.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (4/5 Stars)

It looks like I won’t be skipping my annual ritual (Godzilla, Abysmal State of Movie Ratings, The Avengers, War Horse) of discussing the idiocy of movie ratings and how they affect onscreen violence. I saw this movie in December so this review counts for 2015.

But first of all, the movie does not suck. It is not great and in a smart and safe way does not particularly try to be. That is all right by me. I felt it put the franchise on solid footing and that (many more) future installments will have the room to be more creative and daring if they feel like it.

The movie looks great in the way it should look great. That is to say that it is has all the best cameras and digital effects of today but stays true to many of the technological tropes of the 1970s that distinguished the original Star Wars films. When characters walk into a bar, the aliens are not digital creations. Like the Mos Eisley Tavern in the original they are composed of real life frabric and costuming. And the 1970s clunky computer graphics that everybody uses in the movie are seamlessly transmitted into a 21^st century blockbuster. It is actually much better than I thought was possible. The movie looks great in the correct way. Good job team J.J. Abrams.

The movie introduces two new lead characters and is so good at doing it that the 30-year gap between movies may turn out to be a blessing year in disguise. The first is Rey (played by Daisy Ridley), a poor orphan on the outpost planet of Jakku. She is a stoic scavenger that hunts for parts in the nearby crash-landed and abandoned Imperial Star Destoyer. The second is Finn (played by John Boyega) a stormtrooper who deserts his post after witnessing the brutality of the Imperial system. On his first mission he is told to kill innocent villagers and chooses not to follow orders. Knowing he will be severely punished for not toeing the line, he rekidnaps the newly captured Rebel pilot, Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) to help him escape away.

Rey and Finn are respectively a woman and a black guy. The movie has determined to include everybody. As a white guy I am going to have to be content with Oscar Isaac, who is awesome and I am content with him. Thankfully the movie does not seem to particularly care about Finn being black. However it does insist on several jokes about Rey being a strong woman. These aren’t bad as much as I’ve already heard them before. My favorite though has to be when Rey and Finn are being chased and an explosion near Finn knocks him out. He wakes up and asks Rey, who is standing over him, if she is all right.

 The rest of the new people are a casting director’s dream of interesting people. Adam Driver (of all people) is the new Sith Lord, Kylo Ren. He is a bit of pretty boy and that is one of the relatively more daring twists in this installment. It works by the way. Kylo’s evil counterpart, General Hux, is played by Domhnall Gleeson. Domhnall is my 2015 nominee for Best Year (Ex Machina, Brooklyn, The Force Awakens, The Revenant). Then there is Lupita Nyongo (12 Years a Slave) and Gwendoline Christie (Game of Thrones) who provide voices for their respective characters. None of these actors are all that famous but if you consistently watch good movies, you know of them, because they have distinct voices and memorable faces. They are not a marketing executive’s generalized lowest common denominator pick of what would appeal to most people at the same time (like say the many superheros played by Chris). Nobody in this movie is like that (well maybe Daisy Ridley if we can safely say that being a woman is no longer a handicap anymore). That is kind of amazing in and of itself and makes the movie (and any future installments) that much more interesting to watch.  

Past castmembers are also back but in supporting roles. Luke Skywalker’s absence is a major plot point. I suspect Mark Hamill will have a much larger role in the next movies. Princess Leia is now General Leia and she too has not so big a part though I suspect she may have a larger part in a future movie as well. (There was some controversy over how Carrie Fisher looks. It is not that she has not aged well. It is that she has had enough work done on her face that she no longer looks like a natural aged progression of Princess Leia. It would not have been a big deal if she had wrinkles. She’s old. She should have wrinkles. It is worth noting this in a review because her appearance is unnatural enough to be distracting.) Of the original cast members this movie belongs to Han Solo (and Chewbacca).

Han Solo’s presence and in particular his cool/frustrated dynamic with the always over his head but optimistic anyway Finn provides much of the movie’s fun. There is a good deal of it and provided many of my favorite parts. At one point several of Han Solo’s aggrieved trade partners come after the smuggler and Finn in an effort to save Solo accidentally releases his cargo of extremely dangerous alien predators. And now everyone might die. That was a hoot.

Also rather fun and the defining characteristic of the Star Wars franchise is the aggrandizement of the individual. Other movies are content enough with having the guy next door achieve superpowers, go on an adventure, and save the day/win the hot girl. In Star Wars, all this happens but on a galactic scale! That is to say instead of just competing with several billion people on Earth for the mantle of most special, the characters in Star Wars are supposedly contending with trillions. And the major players in this extraordinarily multidinous amount of life are somehow related by blood. The scope of Star Wars very very big and the people who actually matter are very very few. Try not to think about it too much or the whole thing may seem rather silly. Just enjoy it like when characters somehow infiltrate a gigantic base and somehow know where everything is and somehow never get caught or seen by the many patrols. It’s like when you were five and you played war games or hide and seek except this is with a budget of several hundred million dollars.

Having said that there was something that really nagged me while watching this movie. Take Finn’s story. The fact that he is a disgraced stormtrooper has the effect of humanizing the storm troopers. But, that does not stop him (or anyone else) from killing a lot of stormtroopers in this movie with very little hesitation. And that is just the death you see outright. This movie destroys planets. Not a planet like the original Star Wars. The mean General Hux destroys five planets with his Planet Death Star thingy. That is an extraordinary amount of death right? I mean that is like tens of billions of people. But what is the reaction to this? In the first Star Wars, Ben Kenobi felt a tremor in the force and had to sit down or whatever. In this movie, there does not seem to be any grieving period at all. The planets are not named, no main characters die, and so it is not that big of a deal. As far as I can tell J.J. Abrams with his penchant for destroying entire planets (he has done so before, see Star Trek) must have officially surpassed Roland Emmerich for the motion picture director with the most blood on his hands.

And all of this in a PG-13 movie. How can tens of billions of people die in a movie and it retain its PG-13 status? Counterintuitively the reason it can is because nobody cares about these people. The deaths happen out in the distance of space to nameless people we do not know who have no connection to the people in the story we do know. This is counterintuitive because movie ratings are supposedly about morality and it is pretty universal in all systems of morals that human life is important and equivalent to all other human life. But this is not how it is in movies. In Star Wars: The Force Awakens, we are prompted to care far more about the death of a main character than we are for the tens of billions of people who have died during the course of the film. And anybody who has a mask or helmet on? Thier life isn’t worth shit and their untimely deaths at various times are occasions for laughs or thrills. The MPAA gives a movie an R rating on the basis of blood not death or injury. But what is the ultimate effect of this? Basically any death that isn’t taken seriously (because all violent death requires blood) is okay to show to children. But should children not be aware that violence causes men to suffer and bleed? Should they be told that if they don’t see a person’s face than that person’s death is trivial? And if a person or very many people died in some far off place, should it be related as no big deal?

Such are the idiocies of the present policy and whatever it’s supposed ambitions to promote morality are, I argue that they do the opposite. And I expect I will make the same argument again sometime in the next year.

A Most Violent Year (4/5 Stars)

“I have always taken the most right path”

- Abel Morales

The fate of this movie may be a prime example of the whims of zeitgeist. Just like it sometimes feels a mega hit comes out of nowhere (see “American Sniper”), so can a strong well made movie go nowhere for no particular reason. Writer/Director J.C. Chandor’s third feature “A Most Violent Year” did not make much money or garner a high number of award nominations (strikingly The National Board of Review made it their movie of the year though it should be noted that this designation happened before everyone else, including the Oscars, completely ignored the film). Perhaps though this movie should not yet be written to the dust heap. I have a feeling that the maker is so strong that we might be discovering this ‘lost’ movie ten-twenty years from now. It is further proof that Chandor is as versatile as he is competent. His first movie was ‘Margin Call’ an intricately detailed and highly expository view of high finance on the day of a stock market meltdown. His second movie was the exact opposite. He ditched all the words and wrote a nearly silent movie about one old man at sea named “All is Lost.” This time he switches direction again with a period piece about a heating oil business under attack by rising crime in 1981. It looks and feels entirely different from his first two movies except for the invisible sure hand of the director behind it. Sometimes when you see a movie you can just sense the controlled confidence of a Director with a capital ‘D.’ Alfred Hitchcock movies have this feeling. So do Stanley Kubrick and Christopher Nolan movies. The movies of young J.C. Chandor have this feeling as well.

The story concerns an immigrant Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac) and his wife Anna Morales (Jessica Chastain). Abel is on the verge of expanding his business greatly by buying a refinery for his heating oil business. He has just given a down payment of $40,000 and expects to close the deal with bank financing at the end of the month. At the same time somebody has been hijacking his trucks and selling his oil at a discounted rate to one of his competitors. At the same time the district attorney (David Oyelowo) has started an investigation into his company for complying with the standard industry practices which were generally fraudulent. His wife, who has mob connections, does the books for his company. His lawyer is played by Albert Brooks who has completed the transformation from a young neurotic comedian to an old steely dramatic actor. The man is a heavy now and fits in great with the last great character of this movie, the brooding emptied out noir scape of 1980s New York City. I did not live in NYC during this time but I’ve seen the movies that were made in the early 1980s. One in particular, Escape From New York, imagined a future where the island of Manhattan was transformed into a high security prison populated entirely by criminals. People were not very optimistic back then and you can feel it in this movie.

There is violence in “A Most Violent Year,” but it is portrayed in a way that is almost never seen in movies. Whereas an action movie generally has highly stylized set pieces that ignore many real world implications this movie dives right into the nitty gritty of real life. Take these plot points. There is a discussion as to whether the drivers in the heating oil trucks should be carrying firearms. This is a concern because if a driver shoots a gun on a crowded highway, whether in self-defense or not, it has huge legal ramifications for the company. And if the legal inquiries happen that may scare off the financing from the bank that is central to the real estate deal. I wish action movies would take a look at how J.C. Chandor has made this movie because the violence that takes place albeit with fewer explosions has far more weight and suspense ingrained in it. There is even a car chase in this movie, which simply does not feel like a regular car chase scene. It feels dangerous. For example, if they were to plow into a street cart of fruit (which does not happen but does happen in every other movie with a car chase) you can bet that the owner of said fruitcart would have a major part in the movie. 

The look of the movie is where J.C. Chandor is being his most innovative in this movie. “A Most Violent Year” follows the great cinematic tradition of period pieces that present the world of the past through the film stock of those years. If you are ever wondering why so many movies that take place pre 1960s are black and white or have at least some of the color drained out of them, well we remember those decades that way because all the movies were black and white. This is the same with the graininess of the 1970s. And here, the advent of videotape with its over saturated reds and browns gives “A Most Violent Year” its warm 1980s look. Certainly walking down the street in 1981 did not look like we see it in this movie but we remember it that way because that’s how we recorded it back then. Oh and my favorite set piece is the NYC subway completely overwritten with angry graffiti. That more than anything represents what is known as the Bad Old Days.

The acting is great. Jessica Chastain as always fits in perfectly with whatever she is doing. Oscar Isaac has the keen ability to look like someone who no longer walks around the modern world. In fact, in one of his first major roles he played a Roman Centurion (“Agora”). That sounds about right. I want to see him in a movie where he plays the antagonist in some ancient battle against Russell Crowe. It think he will do a very good job in his next movie that takes place a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

Oh and I was a fan of the Jews, those Orthodox Jews that inhabit South Williamsburg. Those are the guys that Abel does the real estate deal with. I used to do real estate deals with those guys too. You can just tell that anything that happens in NYC from the best to the worst, those guys are going to be relatively unaffected by it. They have their own culture and they have it for the long haul. 

Inside Llewyn Davis (4/5 Stars)

Man of Constant Sorrow

Comedian Patton Oswalt once described what made a Coen Brothers movie special: Most movies are like a small tent with a carnival barker in front of it. You pass by on the street and the barker yells, “Come see the super exciting special blankety-blank!” You pay your ticket and enter the tent. There is the blankety blank just the way the barker described it. There is nothing else in the tent. A Coen Brothers movie is like a huge warehouse. It’s got one of those large roll down metal garage door entrances. The entrance rolls up without revealing a vast space with all sorts of machines and contraptions dispersed throughout. The warehouse contains no barker, no guide, no suspiciously over-friendly attendant. Come inside or stay without, don’t care. Take a glance around or stare for hours, feel free. There is plenty of stuff inside but it’s anybody’s guess whether it is what you are looking for. Hopefully you are the curious type. “Inside Llewyn Davis,” is just like that.

If I were a carnival barker I could describe the plot in a sentence or two. It is about a week in the life of a folk singer named Llewyn Davis (played and performed by Oscar Isaac) circa the 1961 NYC Greenwich Village folk scene. He is good at his job but his job isn’t commercial. He sleeps on the couches and floors of the people he has known for a while or just met. He accidentally lets a calico cat out of one of the apartments and spends a good deal of movie time carrying it around with him. There are also a lot of folk song performances and a trip to Chicago to audition for a big time producer. At the end of the movie he is back exactly where he started having not really gotten anywhere. Not much happens really and what does happen is generally profoundly sad, like a good folk song you know.

But that is not why you want to see this movie. You want to see it because it is an exquisitely refined work of art and perhaps the best movie ever made about an unsuccessful folk singer in 1960’s Greenwich Village. It’s also the only movie I’ve ever seen about that topic, but give that a point for originality if nothing else. 

Let’s start with the music. “Inside Llewyn Davis,” is not a musical in the sense that characters burst out into singing, but it does have several songs performed in their entire length by the characters on stage or anywhere else you can fit an acoustic guitar. The most comparable movie to this one is the Coen’s earlier effort “O’ Brother Where Art Thou,” which had a wall-to-wall soundtrack of largely forgotten Old Tyme music. “Inside Llewyn Davis,” has a great soundtrack of largely forgotten Folk music. Some of these are very very good songs. My favorite has to be ‘Dink’s Song’ which is the main song of this movie as it is played as a duet in the beginning and in a solo performance at the end. Oscar Isaac performs both of the songs and Marcus Mumford of the band “Mumford and Sons” sings the other part of the duet. He does not show up in the movie because his character commits suicide sometime before the story starts. “Dink’s Song” in addition to beautifully arranged in harmony or without is also especially sad. It is about a woman who loved a man who impregnated her and left. As far as we know the song has always existed. A musician once overheard a woman (named Dink) singing it while doing laundry in a nearby river in the very early 1900s. Noone really knows if she wrote it herself. “If the song isn’t new and it never gets old, it’s a folk song,” says Llewyn Davis. All the songs were produced by the legendary T. Bone Burnett who has catalogued an impressive array of different kinds of folk songs. The Llewyn Davis character’s style is based off a folk singer named Dave Van Ronk, but there is also a ‘Peter, Paul, and Mary’ type of band headed by the supremely competent Justin Timberlake (what can’t that guy do?) who also spends a scene recording with a reluctant Llewyn Davis the annoyingly catchy “Please Mr. Kennedy.” A mariner’s song, a travelling song, and a song about death in childbirth are also included in the mix. Hard living, that is what folk songs (and let’s face it, old songs in general) are about. When the country went rich and memories of the Depression and WWII faded, they were forgotten. Now that the money is gone in our time, perhaps we will be seeing a greater revival of them.

A footnote: This will be hilarious come Oscar Time. Certainly the Academy will want to recognize this movie for its music, but as it is limited to recognizing original music, it will be surely be forced to nominate “Please Mr. Kennedy.” The joke is that it is a hokey song that the main character hates and just the type of shit that will become a hit while his soulful music goes unrecognized.

The movie looks great. It looks like someone took the album cover of “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan,” and colored the entire neighborhood with it. It’s a faded color with many greens, whites, and grays. It is beautiful absolutely beautiful. The perfect landscape to go with a song like “Green, Green, Rocky Road.” Surprisingly the cinematographer for this movie is not Roger Deakins, the longtime collaborator of the Coen brothers as he was working on James Bond when this movie was made. The cinematographer here is Bruno Delbonnel. The framing of the scenes are just absolutely perfect. All the corners of the screen are filled in with the correct details. Nothing is left out and nothing is included that shouldn’t be there.

Footnote: Ironically, this movie could very well win the Oscar for Best Cinematography, which would be hilarious given that Roger Deakins has been nominated and not won so many times for his work in Coen Brothers films in the past. Now, if a Coen Brothers movie finally wins this time, he won’t be on the stage to accept it. Ho, ho, ho.

The characters in this movie are so well defined that it seems like that they existed before the movie’s camera got there and continued with their lives after the movie left. One in particular, the sister of Llewyn Davis, Joy, played by Jeanine Serralles, sounds just like my grandmother and not just in the way she speaks, but the particular words she uses. The attention to phrases is so detailed. She only has two scenes but speaks like nobody else in the movie, which makes sense because she lives in a totally different part of town from everybody else. Justin Timberlake continues to impress me. His physicality is so specific it speaks paragraphs. Take a look at his reaction to Llewyn Davis’s query during the recording session. It is about half a second but boy that says everything doesn’t it. John Goodman jumps into a car for the road trip to Chicago, knocks all of his lines out of the park and exits just as quickly. Then there is F. Murray Abraham as the producer Bud Grossman. For lovers of movies, Abraham will forever by remembered as Antonio Salieri, the jealous court composer of “Amadeus” who uses his political power to destroy the career of Mozart. And here is Salieri two hundred years later telling Llewyn Davis that his songs aren’t commercial enough. “I don’t see that much green here,” he explains matter-of-factly. Sometimes being good is just not good enough.

Footnote: Somebody should make a YouTube compilation of Coen Brother's secretaries. They always seem to find the most interesting looking people to sit at desks in little scenes. The little old lady in the agent's office is no different in this one. 

The Coen Brothers are an anomaly of filmmaking. Here are two writer/directors who always made just enough money to never ever have had to compromise with their artistic vision. Hell, even Scorsese had to make the “The Color of Money.” The Coens have never had to do that. Their good luck does not seem to be lost on them. “Inside Llewyn Davis,” is about a musician who does not want to compromise and goes broke and beaten in the process. It is an utterly uncommercial premise for a movie and if the backers get their money back any time soon it will probably be due to past goodwill connected with the Coen Brothers. But it was made and it was made well. So for all us losers out there we now not only have folk music, but this movie as well.

Sucker Punch (4/5 Stars)

Zach Snyder, director of “300” and “Watchmen,” tries out his writing chops for the first time with “Sucker Punch,” a story about a wrongly committed girl who attempts an insane asylum escape. Well actually there is five of them and they’re prostitutes in a bordello and um…The whole escape thing involves fighting World War I, giant mechanical samurais, a dragon…and it all takes place at or in uh…imagination land…you know what? I’ll get back to that. “Sucker Punch” lives up to its title. It is a totally unpredictable unapologetic excess of heightened emotion, ultra violence, and stylistic overindulgence. You can arguably say that “Sucker Punch” is a bad movie but that's sort of like remarking that Opera isn’t realistic enough. I will say this though about Snyder. I’ve always had the feeling while watching his movies that I was witnessing something unmistakably new. If “Sucker Punch” is folly, it is at least my favorite kind. An ambitious one.

The movie starts with your average worst-case scenario. A woman dies. She leaves her entire estate to her two daughters. The evil stepfather gets enraged and with largely incestuous overtones attacks his kids. The older daughter, a girl named Baby Doll, played by Emily Browning, runs to get a gun but returns to late. Her sister has been murdered. The evil stepfather frames Baby Doll and gets her committed to an insane asylum. He then bribes the sadistic operator, played by Oscar Isaac, to have Baby Doll lobotomized within the week.

At this point, the movie becomes a completely different parallel movie, whereupon it seems that Baby Doll imagines herself to be a prostitute in a bordello, who is to be sold to a character called the High Roller within the week. She enlists the help of four other fellow prostitutes, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Amber (Jamie Chung), and Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) to plan an escape. They will need a map, a cigarette lighter, a knife, and a key. The plan is for Baby Doll to put on a highly entertaining burlesque act that will distract all the men in order for the others to steal the items.

I left something out. In the asylum story, there is a psychiatrist (Carla Gugino) who has the inmates perform their sad stories on a theater stage as a sort of therapy. In the bordello, she is a madame who runs the burlesque show. When Baby Doll starts dancing (or supposedly acting out therapy in the first storyline) the movie switches over into battle scenes, which include the five girls donning salacious battle-rattle and fighting various armies for the items. They have to kill Zombie Germans stationed in World War I trenches for the map, a fire-breathing dragon for the fire, and so on. Throughout most of this you can sort of tell what is actually happening in the other story-lines although you may have some very good questions. Like for instance, why is this woman imagining herself in a so very male fantasy world. Or who is the Scott Glenn character, a wise entity that shows up only in the battle fantasies to intone enjoyably ridiculous advice, supposed to be in reality, whatever that is.

The best answer I think is that the several story-worlds have less to do with plot or logic and much more to do with giving Snyder an excuse to zealously indulge into what could perhaps be called an “artistic vision.” I’m guessing he worked backward with a thought process like this: How can I get a team of scantily clad women to battle World War I zombies, medieval dragons, and science fiction robots, all in the same movie? Well, it can totally be in the imagination of a stripper on a mission. That would provide the excuse for putting them in full makeup and revealing outfits the entire time. But wait, what type of stripper would be crazy enough to imagine all that? Well, perhaps if the stripper was but the schizophrenic alter ego of a truly insane woman. But wait, what would make someone be that bat shit crazy? Aha! I’ll have her father kill her sister and frame her for it! Break out the champagne! I’m going to start up the drawings for the gigantic samurai robots!

Really, your enjoyment of this movie is not going to come from the plot or character development. It will come from your willingness to enjoy stand-alone set pieces of ridiculously outfitted women battling equally ridiculous things. In that aspect, the movie truly delivers. The action scenes are outrageous and innovative. Helpfully, Snyder also has the habit of using slow motion. This allows the viewer to admire the artistic still frame, which in turn stops the action from becoming a Bayesian mish mash of mindless confusion. Outside the battle scenes, there is also plenty to admire in style if not in substance. I especially like the camera angles and the exaggerated details in objects and characters. (The Mayor and Cook were my favorite grotesquely comical caricatures). Plenty of attention is placed on composition, color palette, and atmosphere. Snyder’s use of green screen in every shot allows him the requisite control to stylize every single shot. The voiceovers and serious talk could have been more poetic and Snyder's choice of music isn't very good, but still there is a truly great movie waiting somewhere in Snyder’s style. I hope to someday see it. 

The character development in this movie leaves something to be desired. I don’t think it was a very good idea to name the characters Sweet Pea, Amber, or Baby Doll. Blondie is okay I guess. But really, given what the women are made to do, the only name that makes any sense is Rocket. She’s played by Jena Malone and is appropriately the only actor here that gives off any lasting impression. (Emily Browning on the other hand seems to have been cast solely on her ability to look sad). Jena you may remember from “Donnie Darko” and “Into the Wild” and probably don’t remember from one of my favorite hidden movies, “Cheaters.” She deserves to be on the short list of underrated and perpetually underused actresses. Her presence here lends the team its admittedly limited amount of credibility. 

Two more things. The makers will have you believe that this contains themes of female empowerment. Plenty of critics, including two I highly respect A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, say it is decisively misogynistic. I disagree with both. It’s neither. It’s a comic book movie and as such it contains a certain style that equally applies to both men and women. The good guys are exaggerated into the maker’s idea of ideal beauty and the bad guys are exaggerated into the maker’s idea of ideal ugliness. I don’t recall anybody saying that the one-dimensional Spartans in “300” with their ridiculously perfect perpetually uncovered abdominals were somehow demeaning to men. They simply commented on how nice the abs looked. That attitude should be applied to the heroines of this movie. It's true, Snyder deals in the objectification of people. But then again so do all comic books, and for that matter anything dealing with fashion, or why not the entire branch of art called Humanism going all the way back to when Michelangelo added all those muscles in the Sistine Chapel for no other reason than he thought the human body was an admirable thing and that there was no harm in making it look its best. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and people may logically be turned off by the presentation of these women (or like me have a preference for one amongst the others), but I don’t think anyone can argue that Snyder, or for that matter his wife/executive producer Deborah Snyder, wasn’t trying to make the team look as gorgeous as he thought possible. There's nothing wrong with that. 

As far as the plenty of "women in danger" material in this movie, I can’t see how you can have an action movie without it. If there isn’t any danger, there isn’t any conflict. The movie might as well have taken place at a shooting range with the bad guys being cardboard cutouts. The test I would think is whether the makers intend the audience to empathize primarily with the women: Do they mean for us to feel scared when they are in danger and to be relieved when they are triumphant? I think the answer to that is obvious in this movie. If the test worked any other way than every movie with a female action star would be automatically exploitative. That would include Ripley, Clarice Starling, and Lisbeth Salandar. Truly we would be missing out by keeping all those fictional women in the movie universe up on their pedestals totally safe all the time.

Having said that, the PG-13 rating is completely absurd, a perfect example of how hypocritical the MPAA can be. Future moviemakers take note. You can kill all you want just as long as there isn’t any blood. You can present sexual violence just as long as there isn’t any nudity. And you can have characters yell "motherfucker" just as long as you cut out the audio for the second half of the word. Of course, the most ridiculous thing is what the MPAA apparently thought was too objectionable to keep in. The credits and trailer show what sort of look to be like the actual burlesque shows that we never get to see in the movie. So apparently murder and near-rape is fine, but a song and dance number that the women seem to be actually enjoying isn’t. Hmm…now is that misogynistic? 

Body of Lies 10/11/08

Oliver Stone once gave a wonderful insight into telling which war you were watching in a movie if you took away the title, the names, and the dates. He pointed out that you could always tell you were watching a WWII movie because the troops were always going somewhere. The GIs always had a destination. They were going to Berlin, or they were going to a guard a bridge, or they were going to do something anything. He then pointed out that you could always tell you were watching a Vietnam movie because the troops endlessly went in circles, didn't really accomplish anything, and usually ended their fights by calling in airstrikes. 
Ridley Scott's 'Body of Lies' I think will provide a blueprint for movies about the war on terrorism. By the looks of this film, and previous movies about the war on terrorism, this war isn't going to be very entertaining. A movie that is true to the war on terror, like this movie, will be very complex technically and morally, will have convoluted story lines and, for the most part, elusive enemies and far-sighted hard to reach goals. Because this movie resembles something like truth, it is sometimes hard to get through. For half the movie, the enemy isn't clearly defined and is incredibly hard to identify. Leonardo Dicaprio, a CIA agent on the ground, and Russel Crowe, his boss in D.C., go to very great lengths simply to find out what the enemy is doing. After several failures, they stage a super elaborate plot to get to a terrorist responsible for bombings in Europe. Still then the plot goes haywire. The point seems to be that no great expense in technology and good will across the ocean in D.C. will ever compare to actual ground experience and intelligence from allies in the base region. 
The ally in this region, who is continually blown off by the ultimate know nothing arrogant boss, Russell Crowe, is a Jordanian counter-terrorist minister named Mark Strong (He's Middle Eastern even if his name lies opposite). He's morally corrupt (has torture rooms) but is perhaps the only hope for an effective strategy in such a FUBAR place. (The middle east in this movie is a wasteland covered in garbage and sand being roamed by wild scurvy dogs) Unfortunately the only way it seems to get anything done is to involve innocent civilians in the process. This usually gets them killed. When the Russel Crowe character says "no one in this mess is innocent," it sounds like something he needs to constantly repeat to himself in order to sleep. When Dicaprio gets tortured near the end of this film, a part of me thought he certainly deserved it. He certainly did horrible things to get there. 
This movie is tough to watch at times, but I give it a fresh review because it is ultra competent and provides a real on-the-ground look at the war on terrorism. (I would bet the entire thing was shot in the middle east. Some of the war torn vistas seem dangerously close for any film crew) The story makes sense even though sometimes Dicaprio's character seems offset with different principles. Its hard to reconcile the renegade man who would sacrifice innocent civilians and outright challenge government authority with the guy who takes the Arab nurse out on a couple of dates. This is a character with a divergent mind. The role called for a great, maybe impossible, performance. I think Dicaprio's take on it wasn't entirely plausible. Crowe on the other hand was as good as it could be. I heard he gained fifty pounds to play this role. That I think was unnecessary. Unless the character is Oscar worthy stuff (Like Raging Bull or Monster) you really shouldn't be putting yourself through that sort of punishment. It helped the character but this movie doesn't deserve that sort of commitment.
As for Ridley Scott, he has once again proven that he is an ultra-competent director. I don't recall the last time when he did something truly significant (maybe Thelma and Louise) but in the last decade he has been building a list of good (not great) movies. (American Gangster, Kingdom of God, Black Hawk Down, Gladiator). This one certainly updates the war movie genre to current technologies and complexities. It is probably the best movie to come out about the war on terror, but, looking at the track record, that doesn't say much. Still, with the way this war is set up, an easy narrative is going to be hard to come by.