Knives Out: The Hole in the Doughnut Hole

If we must absolutely talk about the quality of Rian Johnson's films, we should probably first address the elephant in the room: yes, he did, in fact, direct one of the best, yet also most divisive, Star Wars movies and yes, said movie probably would have been better with a surer hand at the director's chair. The Last Jedi, despite being pretty great from a whole usurp-the-whole-system by way of arguing the validity of good and evil as being a matter of perspective argument, also lacked in basic entertainment value. The space battles were anemic and, yes, a large portion of the second act seemed to revolve around a bunch of alien llamas which, in turn, kind of made the movie something of a narrative mess. This, coupled with the fact that I've officially seen all of Johnson's movies (so you wouldn't have to), forces the most obvious conclusion: sci-fi and fantasy are NOT Rian Johnson's better genres (see also: Looper) and he'd probably be better off staying far away from them. Now, hard-boiled detective or noir-level mysteries? That's something we could probably all get behind the guy for. Case in point: Knives Out.

Yes, Knives Out is a great movie. The cast, even Katherine Langford, is perfect with enough nuance to make me both empathize with the characters for their flaws and hate them for their assorted pettiness, the plot, especially for a murder mystery, had enough twists to stay exciting without becoming tiring and the dialog stayed smart without being condescending. Tying all of these pros together are an outstanding turn by Daniel Craig as the closest thing to a Southern Hercule Poirot and Ana de Armas as a beyond reproach good person (something most mysteries have a hard time nailing because of the whole “Everyone Lies” motif). It not only kept me guessing but it kept me caring until the very end. Hey, Hollywood: THIS is how you make a mystery stick.

Unfortunately, mostly due to an at-times wordy script, the movie will, on occasion, dip into mundane segues that no one in any sane audience would care about on their best day. While Benoit Blanc (Craig) and his belief in Marta (de Armas) did serve as a backbone for a large portion of the narrative outside of the main plot, it also tended to veer towards obscure observations about existence for the sake of making Blanc even more eccentric than he needed to be to actually solve the case. I appreciate a cast of quirky and memorable characters, Johnson. You don't have to start making references to Gravity's Rainbow when it has NOTHING to do with the investigation.

As for watching it, do you binge watch TV shows like the Midsomer Murders or the Poirot Collection and wish American screenwriters had that kind of talent? This is a movie meant to bring you hope that, not only does that talent exists, but it desperately wants to get out. Would you rather just shut off your brain for a few hours? They were playing Frozen 2 in three other theaters and I'm sure there's musical Earworm Medication that exists somewhere without the need for a lobotomy. Choose that which makes your brain cry the least, I guess.

Rian Johnson (Brick) goes back to what he's excelled at in the past with Knives Out, a fun, at times completely insane, journey through greed and murder that somehow feels like a misplaced feel-good story when the smoke finally settles. With the death of legendary mystery writer Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) and the gathering of his assorted viper's nest of a family for his will reading, well-known consultant detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives under mysterious circumstances to have one last look at the case before the police officially rule the entire thing a garden variety suicide. Michael Shannon will play crazy, Don Johnson will play kind of racist, Jamie Lee Curtis will play high strung, Toni Collette will play hipster and their collective disdain/begrudging tolerance of de Armas' Marta will come back to bite them in the most satisfying way ever. How many other movies can make you anticipate a will reading with a bunch of gold diggers and still be so immensely satisfied when the ultimate realization finally happens?

My score: 9/10. Post-Captain America Chris Evans is a national treasure and must be protected at all costs. Someone start a freaking petition already! 

Midsommar: Toxic Relationships and Freaky Death Cults, Oh My!

Most movies in general tend to follow the simplest rules possible when it comes to plotting, characters, villains and pacing and, sadly, horror movies are no different. Be honest, when was the last time you watched a movie under the Horror banner anywhere and didn't go in expecting the bare minimum? Stupid people are going to do something stupid and encounter something evil/crazy/homicidal that will promptly show them the error of their ways via gruesome and, usually, over-the-top ends which previously mentioned stupid people won't actually learn from because they'll likely be dead by the end of said lesson. While this particular series of events is the basic bones of the genre trope for obvious reasons (its cheap and easy to pull off and requires zero creative input) it also tends to drag the entire genre down into the gutter of predictable plots and people too stupid to recreate. Enter Ari Aster: a man of both cinematic vision and original thought in a genre that doesn't seem to require it.

Before you ask, no, Midsommar is not your typical, mass consumption horror movie with some silly and predictable moral about clean living or else. The characters have depth, the monsters are, at times, far more human than the surprisingly large cast of protagonists, the setting is both beautifully rendered and ominously creepy and the psychological deconstruction of Dani (Florence Pugh) might be the only evil thing I've ever rooted for in a movie ever. Throw in a beautiful score than compliments the steadily deteriorating psyche of its characters and an almost personal argument about toxic relationships and how they can lead to true destruction and you even have something not seen in a horror film since...well, since Aster's last movie Hereditary. Hey, the guy's keeping the quality up, at least!

Unfortunately, like most cinema that breaks the mold, this obviously isn't for everyone or even the seemingly niche audience horror movie tend to create. In order to create a sense of alienation between the audience and the film, nearly half the dialog is entirely in Swedish with, at best, dotted subtitles and, also due to the director wanting the audience to feel his characters' pain, the film features numerous sequences revolving around intense mental anguish that was hard to watch even for someone incapable of being offended like myself. It felt like a movie you should be ashamed of watching and it still managed to resonate as both a deeply personal argument about mundane subjects and how not facing them can lead to destructive decisions and consequences. It was a horror movie about humanity that had me actively rooting against people. How did they do that?

As for watching it, good luck with that decision. This isn't a typical slasher or haunted house movie with simplistic black and white arguments about virtues or sins and, honestly, that will likely inhibit most people from wanting to even give it a chance to prove its worth. Do you seek out a vague answer to a “happy” ending where maybe, just maybe, the bad guys might have a point and the good guys might be the problem? This will probably make you think too much about that. Just try to avoid the urge to bleach your brain afterwards. That doesn't end well.

Ari Aster (Hereditary) continues to find the horrific in the mundane with Midsommar, a “folk horror” story about how a toxic, one-sided relationship and the desperate, nearly psychotic, need for something more can lead to really bad things in the loosest terms of the word “bad”. Having lost her entire family in a murder-suicide and stuck in a loveless relationship with a distant, uncaring boyfriend, Dani (Pugh) decides to guilt her worthless boyfriend Christian into allowing her to tag along on his “guy's trip” to northern Sweden for Midsommar, a once-in-90-years festival centered around a cult-like group called the Hargas. What follows is a steadily more ominous series of events culminating in Dani finally standing up for herself in ways that are both uplifting and disturbing (much more on the disturbing side). I've seen worse movies about Swedish death cults (okay, I've actually seen zero).

My score: 8/10. I will never look at meat pies the same way again. Well, I've always looked at them as disgusting pastries that seem to lack the basic requirements for either terms in their names, but now I'll probably only see them as, well, THAT.

The Joker: Society is to Blame

Before I go into this movie, I feel it is necessary to address the weird elephant-sized problem in the room about society and its nearly comical ignorance of violence and the media that portrays it. For those who really want to know: movies, videogames, books and any other type of entertainment media do NOT inspire the already mentally ill of our society to rise up in arms and harm other people. Society and its perceived lack of interest in helping those who might do such things, plus an unhealthy dose of a need for infamy or merely misplaced hatred are to blame. NOT media. Got it? No? Okay. Watch The Joker and maybe it will help...

Yes, for those who have lived in a cave for the last three months and have heard nothing about all the critical accolades or lavish praise of Joaquin Phoenix's performance, The Joker is a brilliant character piece on arguably the most mysterious character in all of comics. The setting is ominous, Arthur (Phoenix) is relatable as a put-upon nobody with an uncaring society slowly tightening the noose around his neck and the message (society is emasculating and alienating and can cause a violent response from those it deems unworthy of attention) is so on-the-nose in terms of not only The Joker as a character but the modern world as a whole that it almost feels like Director Todd Philips binge watched Fight Club fifty times while writing the script and actually got the point of that particular movie (the whole THIS IS A BAD THING argument that wasn't in that movie). Kudos for finally making a valid argument that doesn't revolve around abs.

Unfortunately, while most of the movie wears its message proudly on its sleeve (Joker is a reflection of a violent, uncaring society), the movie takes a sudden shift in tone in the third act where, for reasons that boggle my mind, suddenly society is made a reflection of The Joker. While it eventually rights itself in the form of the cop-out of an unreliable narrator (because our narrator is insane), this entire segment of the movie felt forced and written by a completely different set of screenwriters. You had me at “when the world burns, it only has itself to blame”, movie. You didn't need to jump into unfamiliar territory out of some misplaced fear that viewers might be bothered by the notion that (gasp) we might all shoulder some of the blame for the violence we see every day.

As for watching it, yes, go do that. Not only is this thing practically an Oscar reel for Phoenix but it does something that even The Dark Knight never managed: make The Joker a sympathetic character despite the knowledge of the monster he becomes. I'd be lying if I said I didn't root for poor Arthur to stand up for himself even though I knew people would die in the process. The movie made me root for a psychopathic killer. Good job, movie?

Todd Philips (The Hangover) tries something very different with The Joker, a dark, brooding take on a clown who just wants people to laugh at the absurdity of life and, when that doesn't work, decides to laugh for them. When Gotham, in a budget crisis, slashes public services, part-time clown Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) loses access not only to much-needed therapy but also the myriad of pills he requires to keep a toll hold on his growing mental illness. This, combined with the stress of caring for his elderly mother and the growing disenchantment of his place in an uncaring and cruel society, prompts a violent reaction that will eventually lead to the creation of that one dude who wears a cheap purple suit and tells bad jokes. Seriously, why can't Batman have an origin story this good?

My score: 8/10. Seriously, why did Fight Club inspire so many stupid, real-life Fight Clubs? You do realize emasculated and alienated people performing acts of violence against an uncaring society in the form of blowing up several buildings is a BAD thing, right? Does it really only take having the main characters watching the world burn to a Pixies song to make us forget that what happened in the movie was actually a terrorist attack?

Ad Astra: A Space Movie that Hates Space

As much as NASA, JPL and pretty much every Star Trek fan loves the idea of humanity diving head-long into distant space travel, colonizing planets and, perhaps, contacting some form of intelligent life, most people are more down-to-Earth (no pun intended) on the whole idea of traveling too far from a planet where, you know, we can actually breathe. This is not saying that space travel is necessarily a terrible idea or the concept of habitats on the Moon and Mars are horrible ideas that will doom us to never learn from our mistakes (because we'd just be putting our own species somewhere else to propagate and destroy a planet that didn't have life to begin with). Its the idea that many people who promote such practices are using the idea of Mars and other potentially colonization-ready planets as an excuse to avoid problems that the same intelligence and ambition could probably fix if they focused just a little bit more attention closer to home. Hence the concept of James Gray's Ad Astra, a movie that tries to yell this at you with all the eloquence of a sledgehammer to the face.

Okay, to be nice, Ad Astra isn't necessarily a bad movie from a strictly film perspective. It does try to stay a little bit on the side of science a la Interstellar and Brad Pitt, despite not really being in his comfort zone here, is still pretty well cast for a part that spends 40% or so zooming in on his face while he tries to argue philosophically with himself for a two hour movie (yes, he actually does this). And, yes, even the whole film's twist (what's the point of dedicating one's entire life to a noble cause if you wind up alone in the end because of that pursuit) is a rather sad yet hopeful turn from a genre usually about people floating through space and doing seemingly impossible things (he does some of that to). In all, a pretty interesting companion to Christopher Nolan's Interstellar with better character development and none of the nonsense about black holes and time travel. Plenty to love for the space nut in us all.

Unfortunately, mostly due to the movie being a much bigger “tell don't show” kind of movie, people coming here to see astronauts float through space and visit far away planets (or, in this case, the Moon and Mars) will be sadly disappointed at just how lackluster said locations are. The Moon and Mars bases are both bland, uninteresting way points for Roy (Pitt) and his journey further out of the solar system and many attempts to make the settings more interesting (Moon Pirates?) are either too ridiculous to acknowledge or too nihilistic (what country capable of putting a base on the Moon would actually need to harbor Space Pirates?) to be entertaining. So, you know, more like Interstellar.

As for watching it, good luck finding anything else out this weekend. I heard Rambo came out and, if you want to anger people who like to attribute movies to real-life violence, you could always go see a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran fight a drug cartel. Or, if you're one of the ten non-critic people on the planet that actually watches PBS, you could go see all the actors get stuffy about simplistic things on Downtown Abbey. Sorry but, with competition like this, Sad Spaceman seems to the most entertaining bet.

James Gray (The Lost City of Z) continues to make heady, mostly lackluster movies with Ad Astra, a too-smart-for-its-own-good, family drama in space that could serve as a running headshot for Brad Pitt. After discovering that his hero astronaut father might still be alive and releasing a space pulse from his last known location at Neptune, Roy McBride (Pitt) agrees to a mission through human space civilizations in an attempt to contact him all the while lamenting how his own ambitions about space travel have doomed his more Earthly relationship with his estranged wife. Big name actors (Donald Sutherland, Tommy Lee Jones) will pop in and out repeatedly, the extent of secrecy around Roy's mission will be so easily compromised it will be ridiculous and we will somehow be able to travel to Neptune within six months without the use of sub-light travel. It's too dark for sci-fi fans and too sci-fi for drama fans. Good luck with that.

My score: 5/10. Is it weird I was really wanting the sci-fi movie to end with the astronaut going home and reconciling with his wife? Is that even considered a climax in this kind of thing?

It Chapter 2: Just Couldn't Cut It

Since I've officially read Stephen King's mammoth opus to childhood It twice now – once in conjunction with The Stand (word of advice: don't ever do this) and the other time right before Chapter 1 released – I consider myself to have an at least fledgling understanding of the book and its various eccentricities. So, before you begin jumping to conclusions about how lackluster I might feel about the second half of a five hour movie, let it be known that the book is overly complicated, prone to leaps of illogical actions by the protagonists (The Ritual of C.H.U.D. MAKES NO SENSE) and might have the worst payoff for a 1100-page read that I can imagine (the fate of Tom Rogan still ticks me off). So, after saying this, is it really any surprise that Chapter 2 just couldn't pull off the magic of its predecessor?

Look, despite the problems I'm about to list off, Chapter 2 is still a pretty well-made movie with a few surprises even for me (because of the whole read-the-book-twice thing). The cinematography is still just as excellent as its prequel, the script flows well enough and the transition between horror and humor is sometimes so jarring that you have to think about the joke for a moment to realize just how funny it is in context to the scene. Throw in a phenomenal casting job lead by a returning Bill Skarsgard in a much more limited role and Bill Hader as the literal voice of the audience and the whole movie even manages to carry its surprises for its extended run time. It was a nearly 3 hour movie that didn't actually feel like it. Take that, Endgame!

Unfortunately, the writing tends to show its hand far too much, leading to scenes that felt like they would have been better utilized in Chapter 1 but the script writers didn't think about it until 2 years later. Its cute that Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor/Jay Ryan) builds a secret clubhouse and that it plays any significance in Chapter 2, but why wasn't it even mentioned in part 1? Also, why was Pennywise (Skarsgard) so anxious to bring the Losers back to Derry when they very nearly killed him last time? The whole point of the Losers losing their memories of Derry and finding unbelievable success in their adult lives was so they would have very little reason to risk their now-wonderful lives on a seemingly fool's errand to kill their worst nightmare. I'm aware its probably too much to ask for logic in a movie about a bunch of nearly forty-somethings returning to their childhood home to destroy a child-eating demon clown (or whatever Pennywise is), but it would have been nice if Part 2 could have stood alone like its predecessor and finished its fight on its own terms.

As for watching it, got anything else to watch this weekend? Let's be honest here: if you saw Chapter 1, you're totally going to watch Chapter 2 even if its for no other reason than to see how they try (and only sort of succeed) in tying off the massive loose ends. I've can honestly say I've seen worse movies starring a clown in a supporting role.

Andy Muschietti (Mama) continues to sow his horror roots with It Chapter 2, a decently-made, if maddeningly less interesting, attempt to follow up his most successful movie with a satisfying ending. When Pennywise returns from his 27 year slumber to once again feed on the children of Derry, Mike (Isaiah Mustafa) takes time out off his Old Spice commercials to call back friends that only he remembers in hopes of killing the creature once and for all. Along the way, Ritchie (Hader) will continue to say things the audience is feeling by occasionally even pointing out plotholes, Eddie (James Ransone) will have the most perfect job ever for a hypochondriac ever and the scriptwriters will frantically recall all the child actors because they will realize they forgot to shoot some random scene inherently important in the sequel. Don't feel bad, movie makers. Part 2 just isn't filmable in a satisfying way.

My score: 6/10. Sadly, Mike started using lady-scented body wash and no longer uses Old Spice to smell like the man your man can be. That's probably the reason Pennywise can smell his fear. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Roma: An Art Movie For Artists (And No One Else)

There's a subgenre in Hollywood. Beyond the endless parade of cash grab superhero, sci-fi, budget horror and romantic comedies, there is a movie genre known as the Art House Movie. There's nothing wrong with an AHM. Some are exceptionally well-made (Moonlight), with great thematic elements (The Florida Project) and even enable long-forgotten actors to finally nab whatever award-season gold that has been eluding them over their long, sometimes illustrious careers (Little Miss Sunshine). The genre is merely a different type of hook for the ever expanding fishing rod of Hollywood. Some movies (well...almost all of them) are built as disposable, loud reels of scattered humor and forgettable plot to pull in that big fish of monumental profits for the sake of paying for the shiny, fragile hook. Others (mostly the AHM stuff) are meant to nab the slightly less valuable (but totally more braggadocios) fish known as OSCAR. For Alfonso Cuaron's latest Roma, I sense gold plating over cheap tin in its future.

Okay, look, if you like movies as an art form (which means you are either a filmmaker, wannabe filmmaker or a critic), you will probably love Roma. It's beautifully shot, heartfelt, well-acted, nearly perfectly directed and, like pretty much every Cuaron movie ever made, guides its viewer, seemingly by hand, through the story it weaves while still making you feel like you might have missed some minute detail because you had to blink too many times at one point. Throw in newcomer Yalitza Aparicio as the put-upon Cleo and Marina de Tavira as a strong mother trying to allow a disintegrating marriage to fall apart gracefully and you have the beating heart that is the very theme of the entire story: Ordinary people with ordinary lives with real meaning behind all that ordinary. And I DARE you not to cry when that realization comes.

Unfortunately, like mentioned before, Roma is a piece of art strictly for art's sake, meaning that, outside of the ever shrinking circle of film majors and critics, the reasons for watching this becomes pretty non-existent when compared to the much less weighty fare that actually draws audiences this time of the year. This, plus the fact that it was pretty much made for an audience of perhaps ten to fifteen people (Cuaron, his immediate family and the housekeeper he dedicates it to) pushes it further behind the brick wall of of accessibility already erected due to the obvious language barriers (the movie is in both Spanish and Mixteco).

As for watching it, are you planning on following any of the post-Oscar buzz to the theater? Since the Oscars are (as of this writing) two hours away and counting and Roma is currently the hands-on favorite to not only win some of the big categories but win big for both the best (its a beautiful film) and worst (it feels like it was nominated more for the “woke” Hollywood nonsense than its obvious artistic value) of reasons, its probably a great time to watch it conveniently if you have the time (it IS a Netflix original, after all). Have you already reached that point where you would rather shove sharp objects into your eyes rather than give Hollywood the satisfaction of watching one of their heavily-awarded, artistically heavy movies? Well, due to the whole “It's on Netflix” thing previously mentioned, you can easily watch this without giving Hollywood any of your money and still enjoy this film for what it is. Its a good movie that you can watch and still stick it to Hollywood. What's not to like (other than the whole forced-to-read-subtitles thing)?

Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity) goes for what should be his third Oscar (but is actually only his second) with Roma, a love letter to the woman who raised him as a child growing up in Mexico City. When Cleo (Aparicio), a domestic servant who helps Antonio (Fernando Grediaga) and Sofia (de Tavira) care for their four children in the 1970s Mexico City district of Colonia Roma, discovers that she is pregnant, she finds her dilemma coinciding with the dissolution of Antonio and Sofia's marriage as well as the chaos of the still-ongoing Mexican Dirty War of the era. I'm not saying anymore. Go watch it yourself.

My score: 9/10. The fact that a person named Yalitza Aparicio is nominated for Best Actress this year seems to confirm my long-held belief that Oscar voters hate statue engravers and nominate hard to pronounce/spell names merely to torment said engravers into watching the ceremony to discover how bad their eventual headache will be. Freaking Hollywood sadists...

The Upside: Middle Ground

The truest slippery slope in all of film might just be the concept of the comedic drama (or dramatic comedy depending on how you look at it) and its constantly shifting allegiances between the two genres. If its too humorous, it becomes too funny to be taken seriously and devolves into just another forgettable comedy that fails to get its more serious aspects across to the audience. If its too serious, it fails to capture the ever coveted audience it needs to sustain any kind of run in theaters and, ultimately, gets relegated into the too-full-of-itself-to-enjoy type of movie most audiences not only avoid like the Measles vaccine in Clark County, Washington but will probably forget completely about anyway before they even manage to leave the theater. In the case of Neil Burger's newest stab at the genre with The Upside: well...they nailed the comedy enough, I guess.

Okay, to be nice for the sake of people who somehow keep Kevin Hart employed outside of stand-up, The Upside is a pretty fun movie with enough charm to nearly sustain its run time, some entertaining performances from the actors you would expect such work from (Nicole Kidman, Bryan Cranston) and even manages to surprise with its half-hearted take on a Hart-lead dramatic role. Throw in some surprisingly heartfelt direction by the guy guilty of starting the Divergent nonsense and some decent cinematography that feels just a little to high in the quality department for this type of movie and you tend to have something resembling a good time for about two thirds of the movie. Hey, two thirds can work sometimes!

Unfortunately, despite the mostly stellar acting involved, I was never truly invested enough in these characters to look past the very formulaic plot that tends to plague these kinds of productions. Is Dell (Hart) a former lowlife trying desperately to turn his life around but stuck in a nihilistic rut of being well-meaning but lazy? Check. Is Philip (Cranston) totally going to get a new lease on life in a shockingly fast way that seems to come out of nowhere and, when everything comes full circle, kind of feel rushed and unbelievable? Check. Will they have a big falling out over something that feels kind of pointless to the grand scheme of the movie and make their big “breakup” argument drag on just long enough to where the audience will start checking their phones? Check. Regardless of the fun characters, the movie never feels like more than a sum of its weakest parts and, when it comes time to shelf the likes of Kidman or Cranston, these flaws burn so brightly they blot out anything resembling the fun time you would expect from the comedy side of this kind of equation.

As for watching it, got anything better to do this weekend? Lego 2 (brilliantly subtitled “The Second One”) is out and likely to absorb most of the population with children and, while its still kind of stuck in its own slow buildup phase, Glass will likely take up anyone interested in weird, undefined movies about people staring seriously at stuff so...go for it if you want to see a movie most of the normal people will probably watch because its one of the few they can get into with minimal hassle? Hey, its not the choice I would make to waste two hours of my life again, but I'd be lying if I didn't say its fun parts (barely) outweighed its mediocre parts. Is that a win in any of your categories?

Neil Burger (The Illusionist) goes from making head trips and teen romance to making old guy buddy comedies with too much dramatic flair with The Upside. Desperate to remain out of prison and constantly trying to make things right by his estranged son and ex-girlfriend, Dell(Hart) lands a job as a medical auxiliary for Philip (Cranston), a billionaire quadriplegic widower whose biggest flaw is he made one big mistake the put him in a chair for the rest of his life. Where am I supposed to go with this? Ex-Con and Billionaire become friends for seemingly innocuous reasons that are covered up by some humor, both get on each other's nerves and somehow bond, both break up awkwardly because the movie was apparently becoming too entertaining and we needed to see some drama we didn't ask for and everything gets tied off with a neat little bow at the end that might as well have been attached to a package marked “Friendship Conquers All”. I've seen cornier.

My score: 7/10. Goodbye, Albert Finney. There are some fish not meant to be caught...