Finally catching up on some 2022 movies...
Titles covered: The Batman, The Bad Guys, Nightmare Alley, King Richard, The Northman, The Rescuers and Rescuers Down Under.
The Batman (****)
All my life, they keep trying to make Batman darker and grittier. We keep getting new attempts to make the Batman mythos more realistic, scarier, and more grounded. The only major deviations were Joel Schumaker’s movies, which received mixed reception. The Batman goes so far in this direction that it’s not really a superhero movie at all, but more of a detective thriller inspired by the Zodiac Killer. It’s certainly more grounded than even the Nolan trilogy, which had realistic aesthetics but ludicrous storylines.
I honestly wasn’t that hyped for yet another gritty Batman. We’ve gotten so many different versions of this same idea that it’s started to get boring. And yet, director Matt Reeves pulled it off. The Batman is one of the best. It’s engaging, smartly written, emotionally resonant, and thematically cohesive. The only real complaints I can make are a few odd casting choices and the drawn-out 3rd act.
Robert Pattison (of Twilight infamy) might not be the best Bruce Wayne, but he’s an excellent Batman. He’s scary, imposing, and utterly convincing once he puts on the Batsuit. In an interesting touch, he looks like hell when he takes it off (bruises, messed hair, streaked eye makeup, etc.). And best of all, he finds a much better voice as Batman than Christian Bale’s gravely screams. Adding to the strong notes of the cast are the ever-reliable Jeffery Wright as Commissioner Gordon, Paul Dano as a realistic version of the Riddler, and a stunningly hot Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman. Other casting choices are kinda strange, such as Andy Serkis as Alfred and Colin Farrel as Penguin (in a fatsuit and makeup), but they’re not bad.
But most of all, I appreciated how well-written this movie is. The dialogue is never pretentious or overstated, but efficiently moves the plot along through its various twists and major emotional beats. The complicated scheme is made easily understandable, and keeps us guessing what the killer’s next move will be. I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that this is the most well-written Batman movie since Mask of the Phantasm.
The biggest criticism I’ll lay down is that The Batman is too long, in part due to an extended 3rd act that has several so-so endings instead of one big climactic conclusion. Otherwise, this is easily one of my favorite Batman movies. Highly recommended.
The Bad Guys (***)
Hey, Dreamworks is still around!
The Bad Guys represents a mild come-back for the Disney rival, as the most successful of their post-pandemic releases. It’s certainly the best looking Dreamworks movie we’ve seen in quite a while, trading out their usual Shrek aesthetic for something more vibrant, kinetic, and expressive. It’s hard to explain the new style, but it’s a smooth hybrid of 2D and 3D elements, appearing somewhat similar to the toons in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
The plot of The Bad Guys is simple and appealing. The main characters are all dangerous animals who form a gang of thieves. They commit elaborate robberies with fancy “Mission Impossible” tricks, which is a lot of fun to watch. The world of the film is a bit strange (main characters are anthropomorphic animals, but all background characters are humans), but you can sort of just run with it.
The movie is great for the first half. The second half… is much less great, due to the story falling into some very tiresome tropes. First of all, The Bad Guys follows the trend of recent Disney movies by including a “twist villain.” The twist is hard to swallow, and really not necessary. What’s especially frustrating is that the villain character could have been a more interesting and believable “soft” antagonist without the twist. Finally, the ending drags with too many “chase” sequences that aren’t necessary, as the main characters have already won at that point.
Still, I largely enjoyed The Bad Guys for its funny characters, fast-paced action, and solid voice acting. It’s a bit uneven, but the good parts are really good. Recommended.
Nightmare Alley (*** and a half)
I have a feeling that Guermo Del Toro is never going to out-do Pan’s Labyrinth.
Nightmare Alley is a remake of an older film noir. It focuses on carnival performers who use sleight-of-hand, psychological parlor tricks and emotional manipulation to appear psychic. The tricks are interesting, and explained very well. I’m of the opinion that everyone should familiarize themselves with these tricks to some degree, to avoid being manipulated or gaslit. In particular, the movie helps us empathize with those who allow themselves to be tricked, showing how badly they want to believe in magic. A scene in which Bradley Cooper cold-reads a police officer is particularly emotional and effective.
The plot ends up shifting gears about half-way through, leaving the carnival behind and acquiring an entirely new story about the magician teaming up with a femme fatale to bamboozle a shady millionaire. I found this section of the movie less engaging than the carnival setting, in part because it’s less visually appealing, and partly because everyone is unsympathetic (with the possible exception of Mara Rooney).
Overall, Nightmare Alley is a solid watch with the usual visual flair you expect from Del Toro movies.
King Richard (***)
This movie will probably be overshadowed by its star, who managed to win an Oscar and commit assault on the same night.
As with a lot of movies hyped up around one actor, the award-winning performance is great, and the rest of the movie is fine.
The story follows Richard Williams on his quest to promote his daughters Serena and Williams. We all know that they will become tennis stars, so the movie doesn’t bother to show us that. Instead, it shows their childhood, and how their father laid everything on the line for them. He stands up to street gangs, constantly pursues agents and coaches, and trains them himself on poorly-maintained community courts. Will Smith truly does give the performance his all, finding a unique voice and posture so that you forget that it’s him.
What keeps this movie from greatness, however, is a lack of focus. The film can’t seem to pick a theme. It shows the girls dealing with obnoxious “hoods,” and then moves on. It points out that they are a black family trying to succeed in a white sport, and then moves on. It raises questions about obsessive parents drilling their kids in niche sports that rarely lead to a productive career… and then moves on. Nothing really sticks.
I guess I mildly recommend this movie for Will Smith’s award winning performance and interesting bit of tennis history. Otherwise, it’s nothing amazing.
The Northman (**)
Writer-director Robert Eggers makes movies set in distinct time periods that really feel brutal and otherworldly. He tries to understand past people on their own terms, avoiding any modern influences, dialogue, or attitudes. His best effort by far remains The Witch, a weird but memorable horror film set in the Puritan colonies. The alien atmosphere and unsatisfying plot mostly worked because it built suspense and horror.
Egger’s 3rd movie is The Northman, adapting the legend of Hamlet/Amleth. At first, the story feels more conventional than previous Eggers films, as a straightforward revenge story about an orphaned prince set to kill his traitorous uncle. But very quickly, the auteur vibe sets in…
Early in the movie, Amleth participates in a raid on a village and callously watches as women are raped and children are murdered in front of their parents. What story purpose does this serve? You’d think it would set up a redemption arc, or have the protagonist switch sides and fight against his horrible clan. This sort of happens, but without the main character going through any realization or moral change. See, we’re supposed to be in the brutal world of Vikingdom, and that kind of morality would be too “modern.” This makes the characters hard to identify with. Honestly, I hated virtually everyone in this movie except Willem Defoe (the “Yorick”) and Anna Taylor-Joy (the “Ophelia”).
Look… I get it. I hate it when movies go the other way and treat the main character like a time-traveler from the modern day or an obvious author avatar. But focusing entirely on the extreme attributes of past people and ignoring their inherent humanity isn’t good writing either.
That said, there are a lot of great moments in The Northman. I liked the beautiful cinematography. I liked the quest for the magic sword. I liked the first 20 minutes of the movie, and the revealing dialogue in Nicole Kidman’s big scene.
And yet… I just didn’t like this movie. It’s too violent, too nihilistic, and too long for a simple story about simple barbarians. Shakespeare told this story much better, with actual psychological depth. For all the arthouse style and obsession with historical realism, The Northman is neither smart nor believable.
The Rescuers (****) vs. The Rescuers Down Under (** and a half)
My daughter is now old enough to enjoy cartoons with stories, so I checked out a Blu-Ray with both Rescuers movies from the library. I sort of remembered that the original Rescuers was better than its sequel, but many people on the Internet say the opposite. So I rewatched both with my daughter, and… Let me put it this way: there’s more emotion in the title credits sequence of the original Rescuers than the entire run-time of its mediocre sequel.
The plot of both movies is pretty simple: there’s a kid who is abducted by a villain for the purpose of locating something that the villain believes will make them rich. Two mice are sent to rescue the child, and ultimately succeed against all odds.
I noticed one key aspect in the original Rescuers that gives the plot some gravitas: Penny’s faith and sense of self-worth. She’s an unwanted orphan, kidnapped by the villain specifically because no one will miss her. Madam Medusa plays to Penny’s inferiority complex to reduce her to a simple tool, while the animal characters challenge Penny to have faith in her own inherent worth. She even prays to God… a rare sight in mainstream cartoons.
That depth is not captured in the sequel at all. Supposedly, the kidnapped boy (Cody) was supposed to be an Aboriginal, an angle that might have had some bite. Instead, the creators were forced to make him a very generic kid that us American boys would relate to. However, I distinctly remember that when I was a kid, I didn’t connect with Cody at all. He doesn’t have realistic kid emotions and motivations. He’s a fantastical eco-warrior who free-climbs sheer rock walls and rides eagles as if he’s in Lord of the Rings. That sort of feat could make for an exciting climax, but it doesn’t work as the character’s introduction, especially if he’s going to be useless for most of the movie. Penny was done right: she starts off helpless, which makes her bravery when retrieving the Devil’s Eye all the more striking.
That’s not the only story problem with Down Under. Bernard and Bianca don’t have much to do, since there’s no mystery surrounding Cody’s disappearance and the mice don’t even meet him until the last 15 minutes. There’s also a few pointless sequences, the worst of which involves an albatross being violently treated by a crew of doctor mice. Critically, the film lacks payoff and falling action. There’s a very long sequence of captured animals trying to escape the villain, but we never revisit these characters or find out their fate. Did anyone bother to rescue them?
By contrast, the original Rescuers is very efficient, building the story scene-to-scene with only a few brief extraneous bits. Nearly every scene involves the characters learning something or overcoming a logical obstacle. There are no wasted characters. Even a cheap gag like a moonshine-drinking mouse will pay off.
However, there is one area in which The Rescuers falls short, and that’s in the consistency of the animation. Some of the animation looks great (particularly Medusa, Bianca, and the water effects), but other bits look sloppy. There’s some overly static backgrounds, a few color problems, and bits of scratchy cleanup work here and there. Down Under is much cleaner and more vibrant. As much as I disliked the story, I did like the animation a lot. Glen Keane’s animation on the eagle is especially good. You can tell that the artists put a lot of work into the animal movements and grand vistas.
So yeah, check out The Rescuers if you haven’t seen it lately. It held up surprisingly well for both Zelda and I. As for the sequel? Eh, it’s got some pretty artwork and a few inspired bits here and there (the telegraph operators, the egg stealing sequence, etc.). Otherwise, it’s very badly written, and Zelda thought the bad guy was too scary.