Movie Reviews: November 2018
Titles Covered: Solo, Avengers: Infinity War, Isle of Dogs, From Here to Eternity, A Quiet Place, Chappaquidick, The Equalizer, Gentlemen's Agreement, and Won't You Be My Neighbor?
Solo (** and a half)
I have not been pleased with the new Star Wars canon. But... everyone else seems to like Disney Star Wars, so who am I to ruin their fun?
Then, something strange happened: Solo failed. Perhaps everyone could have simply declared that Solo was a particularly terrible movie in an otherwise stellar franchise. Instead, it became a frantic quest to figure out what had gone wrong since The Last Jedi got mixed audience reception several months before. The term batted around was “franchise fatigue,” a polite way of admitting that a franchise is sucking (remember when "franchise fatigue" was supposed to explain why The Amazing Spiderman series had be cut short?).
But the funny thing about all of this is... Solo itself isn't bad. I mean, it's not good, but it's not bad.
Well, parts of Solo are bad. The plot is a predictable heist caper in which everyone betrays everyone else over a McGuffin that doesn't matter. There's a third-act reveal of a character we've never seen before, and a cliffhanger that was already spoiled by “The Clone Wars” several years ago. The sassy freedom-fighter droid (that Lando apparently loves?) is over-the-top and ridiculous. The cinematography and planet landscapes are mostly dark and uninspired, the pacing drags at times, and the music is all over the place.
And yet, there were times that I swore I was watching a legit pre-Disney Star Wars sequel. Does Ron Howard “get” Star Wars in ways that previous directors didn't? I mean, here we have a movie that feels very Star Warsy without rehashing the same-old plot beats, and conflict in which I actually believed that the characters were in danger. The costumes and creatures are spot-on, and sometimes the movie does build up a lot of tension. In particular, I applaud an early scene of Han stumbling through a refugee-filled spaceport trying to evade both stormtroopers as well as criminals that seem to have an understanding with the Empire. And right after that, we get a look at the low-level grunts of the Imperial army, filmed like a serious war movie. The actors are pretty good (except the droid, but all her lines are dumb). If this were a project with lower expectations, such as a TV special, I'd give it a thumbs up.
Out of all the Disney Star Wars movies, Solo might be the one that annoyed me the least. It might actually be a small step in the right direction, despite not having the cinematic craft of The Force Awakens, or The Last Jedi. Solo doesn't suck. Yay?
The Avengers: Infinity War (****)
Six years ago, Marvel made it big with The Avengers, a cross-over superhero movie that was very ambitious and wildly successful. I’m also of the opinion that it wasn’t that great, but it was a fun movie to watch at least once. In the time since then, Joss Whedon’s throne has passed to the Russo Brothers, who proved their worth with the second and third Captain America movies. And now, the Russo brothers have made the best Avengers movie by a significant margin.
First of all, there are an absurd number of characters in this movie, yet somehow it never gets confusing. Sure, several characters don’t do much aside from throw a few punches, but this works because the movie never puts plot pressure on anyone who has less than 10 minutes of screen time. It’s like watching a war movie in which you know the names of all the soldiers. But even among the characters who do have a role in the plot, the count is pretty high, and the fact that the story holds together is pretty impressive. This is the ultimate cross-over comicbook movie, in which everyone shows up to do something, even if just for a few minutes.
With such a large number heroes, the movie has to challenge them, and boy oh boy does it deliver. Thanos is an interesting villain, a being of nearly god-like power convinced that he is the hero of the story. And he also has 4 followers who have high-level supervillain presences of their own, so that the climax doesn’t have to be entirely occupied with… sigh… the usual infinite disposable CGI army that appears in too many Marvel movies (it’s still there, but mostly doesn’t matter).
I honestly wasn’t that stoked for this movie when the trailers came out. It looked like yet another CGI army mess. But the movie surpasses its predecessors with a tighter plot, higher drama, and better action scenes. After being disappointed with Black Panther’s deux-ex-vibranium fight scenes, I’m glad to see a Marvel movie that really lives up to the hype.
Isle of Dogs (***)
Isle of Dogs is the second stop-animated film from quirky cult director Wes Anderson, following the rather funny Fantastic Mr. Fox in 2009. The plot concerns a fictional Japanese city that has banned all dogs to a trash island, and a boy who goes to retrieve his lost guard dog. The dogs all speak English, but most of the people speak un-subtitled Japanese, essentially making the dogs more relatable than the people. It’s a very clever premise, and an interesting and unique experience. But is it a great movie? Eh….
As much as I wanted to love this movie, it ultimately left me wanting more. The visuals of the film are surprisingly bland, with a lot of unattractive puppets and stark backgrounds. It definitely lacks the visual panache that Anderson has pulled off before. Also, I couldn’t shake the feeling that Wes Anderson’s shtick is getting a little old. Sure, the plot is very original and creative, but the dialogue has the same-old monotone readings that Anderson just can’t seem to pry himself away from. And the jokes have a quality of being so obviously subversive that they are ultimately predictable.
Isle of Dogs is fine. See it for the interesting plot and unique approach to storytelling. Just don’t expect another Moonrise Kingdom.
From Here to Eternity (***)
Whether you’ve seen this movie or not, I guarantee that you’d recognize its iconic scene (pictured above), which has been parodied in everything from Shrek to Grease to Airplane. Oddly enough, the actual scene is not as romantic as its imitators.
From Here to Eternity does not have an entirely cohesive plot. It just follows the lives of a few soldiers stationed on Hawaii right before the Pearl Harbor Attack. One of them is an ex-boxer who refuses to get back in the ring, one is a hard-nosed NCO having an affair with his boss' wife, and the third is Frank Sinatra. I can’t quite remember what his subplot was about. The dialogue and acting are quite strong, exhibiting solid film-making skill. However, the film doesn’t necessarily have a point. It’s just a lot of stuff that happens, until suddenly everything goes topsy turvey during the attack on Pearl Harbor. People die, tears are shed, and the women get sent away.
And that brings me to the subject of the film’s central romance, which is an adulterous affair. Incidentally, I hate it when movies suggest that two wrongs make a right when it comes to adultery (i.e. one spouse is a villain, so it's totally OK for the other to cheat), and From Here to Eternity is no exception. It’s handled slightly better than more modern movies would, but that’s not saying much.
I liked the beginning of From Here to Eternity, and I liked the end. In the middle it lost me. It needed more focus and direction to become one of the great classics.
A Quiet Place (**** and a half)
Holy crap, this is a great film!
Straying far away from his celebrity persona as “Jim from The Office”, John Krasinski directed this family horror movie in which he and his real-life wife have to protect their kids from a world taken over by invincible blind aliens. This provides a unique and original premise for a horror movie, and also a stunning metaphor for the apprehensions of being a parent. “Who are we, if we can’t protect them?” asks a tearful Emily Blunt.
A Quiet Place is outstanding. The horror genre may have a bad reputation for being all about excessive gore and horny teens, but A Quiet Place is one of the great horror films that tells its own compelling story. Ever actor hits it out of the park, the creatures are well designed, and the movie is really, really scary.
On top of all of that, A Quiet Place makes outstanding use of its premise, using very sparse dialogue and facial reactions to tell the story in place of dialogue. The universe-building, plot, and drama all center around the need for everyone to be as quiet as possible, never making a sound lest the monsters show up and rip everyone to shreds. Oddly enough, this ends up being a film with exceptional sound design, as every footstep, drip, and leaf rustle is articulate and threatening.
A Quiet Place is the best 2018 movie I’ve seen by a large margin, and had better be nominated for some Oscars.
Chappaquidick (***)
Although I’m from a generation that doesn’t really care about the Kennedys (I guess they’re calling us “Xennials”), I have heard about the Kennedy Curse. JFK and RFK were assassinated, others died in bizarre circumstances, and Ted Kennedy may have left a campaign worker to die.
The story goes like this: while partying with campaign helpers and distant family, Ted Kennedy was involved in an accident that led to his car falling off a bridge into a pond. Ted escaped, but one of his young female aides was trapped in the car and drowned. The incident was not reported until several hours later, when bystanders discovered the car, and became a national scandal that led to a minor criminal conviction.
A topic like this naturally invites political polarization (conservative outlets promoted this movie, while liberal outlets ignored it), though the film makes some effort to walk a middle line. It points out that Ted Kennedy held late-night parties with young women, but doesn’t go as far as to say that he was actually sleeping with them. Similarly, it’s left unclear how Ted escaped the submerged car, and if he could have gotten appropriate help in time, given the remote location and unusual hour. However, the movie does show how political “fixers” can manipulate the media.
As a movie, Cappaquidick is a pretty good drama, held back from greatness by its predictability and slow pace. That said, I will compliment Ed Helms for his compelling portrayal of a Kennedy cousin, who challenges Ted to tell the truth. In my favorite moment, Ed confronts the parents of the dead girl and keeps repeating “I tried to save her,” as if he’s trying to convince himself. Damn.
The Equalizer (***)
This movie has started a small inside joke between my wife and I. If anything happens to her, I have to become the Equalizer.
Based on a 1980’s crime show, the titular “Equalizer” is a government operative who left his military career behind at the request of his dying wife. Now middle-aged, the widower works at Home Depot (claiming a bizarre cover identity as a retired Mo-Town dancer), but seeks to help the oppressed as a vigilante. Basically, he’s John Wick without guns. Or maybe John Wick is the Equalizer with guns. Another key aspect of the Equalizer’s methods is that he offers the badguys a way to atone for their crimes, which sometimes they agree to.
Anyway, The Equalizer is a pretty standard crime/vigilante action movie, but with better acting and more stylish direction. Director Antoine Fuqua is pretty good with this sort of material, and he’s done great action work in the past with Olympus has Fallen. The Equalizer is more restrained than some of Fuqua’s other movies, and while some scenes tend to drag a bit, it’s pretty dang exciting when it works.
This movie is pretty much Denzel Washington’s show, though Chloe Grace Moretz does shine as a teenage Russian prostitute. Actually, now that I think about it, her character is kind of a metaphor for her career (little girl promised stardom, shoved into terrible roles until she’s worn out her welcome… geez, this was kind of on the nose!).
I don’t want to make this movie out to be more than the silly action movie it is, but for what it’s worth, The Equalizer is a pretty good one.
Gentlemen’s Agreement (** and a half)
At this point, I’ve seen most of the really famous classic American films (such as those in the AFI Top 100), so I’ve been slowly catching up on what might be called the “minor classics.” This Best Picture winner stars Gregory Peck as a reporter who pretends to be Jewish for 6 months in order to write a magazine piece on anti-Semitism. It’s an interesting premise, and has some good acting. It also does a good job of presenting more subtle forms of prejudice rather than the cartoon-evil villains you often see in racial dramas.
However, I have two major gripes against this movie, one which is the fault of the filmmaker, and the other might be the fault of people who came later. The first gripe is that the movie is assembled in a very dry and straightforward way that doesn’t allow the drama to really come through. The editing is frankly very bad, and the lack of music is noticeable. The pacing also stays the same from start to finish. My second gripe is that Gregory Peck’s character is way too self-righteous. Peck is naturally good at delivering moral sermons, but the film stretches him too far, to the point that he’s even lecturing the actual minority group that he pretends to be! This might have not bothered me that much, but after having grown up in the PC age, I can’t help but be reminded how badly a cause can be corrupted if you make it about yourself rather than the actual cause.
Gentlemen’s Agreement starts off really good, but lost me towards the end. It has good things to say, but the self-righteous protagonist and weak film-making keep it from being a really great film.
Won’t You Be My Neighbor? (*** and a half)
I have a confession to make: I never liked the TV show Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood.
Growing up the 1980’s, I knew that the gold standard for TV shows was Sesame Street. Some adults talked about how great Mr. Rogers was, but I thought he was kind of boring. Was I just a hyper-active kid who couldn’t sit still as a kindly old man explained life? Or was Fred Rogers a relic of an earlier time? As a guest of the documentary explains, “If you take all of the elements that make good television and do the exact opposite, you have "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood". Low production values, simple set, an unlikely star. Yet, it worked.”
Won’t You Be My Neighbor feels like the journalist from Citizen Kane was digging deep into Mr. Rogers to try and understand him. Who exactly was that eccentric, soft-spoken man who stayed on TV for decades, despite his slow pace, minimalist sock-puppet shows, and obvious dislike of television? Was he for real? Was he a wounded adult trying to express childhood pain? Did he really believe his own messaging, which would fit comfortably with Barney the Dinosaur’s “I love you” song?
Turns out, yeah, he sorta was the character he played on TV: a righteous man who believed very strongly in the dignity of all people. He really did hate mainstream TV shows, even other children’s shows, which were rooted in competition, slapstick, and fighting. And he was sometimes surprisingly subversive in his messaging, as storylines of Mister Rogers commented on the Vietnam War, the assassination of RFK, and the Civil Rights Movement. And his obsessive focus on this unique form of children’s ministry is a lot of what makes him so fascinating. There were some points of the documentary where I thought they could be chronicling the psyche of a revolutionary or madman, not a TV personality.
Won’t You Be My Neighbor is a touching and frank view of an interesting man who saved PBS and spoke to generations of children. He didn’t speak to me, and I am definitely not Mr. Rogers, but I think I understand a bit more as to why he was so popular. Many kids need a grandpa on TV to tell them that they are special, and a puppet tiger to assure them that they were not a “mistake.” But maybe they also needed Oscar the Grouch to point out their flaws.