Showing posts with label 2023. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2023. Show all posts

Sunday, August 10, 2025

Rebel Moon - Parts 1 & 2, A Child of Fire and The Scargiver (2023-2024) Review

the story: A farming village on a remote moon finds itself the target of the nightmarish Imperium military.

the rating; ****

the review: Usually a review, even here, covers one movie at a time, and I could certainly split my thoughts between A Child of Fire and The Scargiver individually, but Rebel Moon hit that sweet spot the internet loves so much, something it was supposed to like but ended up hating, so I'm going to simplify things and write about both films under a single umbrella.  Longish review short: Rebel Moon is better than you heard.

Actually, so the story goes, it began life as a project Zack Snyder pitched in the Disney Star Wars era, and anyone who watches or knows anything about Rebel Moon will find this very easy to believe.  Much of the general framework of the two films is Star Wars iconography, down to the stand-in lightsabers a few of the characters use.  

The very funny thing about all this, the reaction to Rebel Moon is that it addresses basically all the criticisms the internet has posed about Star Wars over the years.  It also handily combines the original, prequel, and sequel trilogies, nine films into two.

Star Wars fans worry that the original trilogy will lose its appeal to later audiences, who are growing up with films that look far more advanced than even the pioneering work done in 1977, 1980 and 1983, with or without the visual updates George Lucas has toiled away at for some thirty years.  The prequels are generally derided for trying to appeal to younger audiences a bit too much, with elements that are hard to take seriously and thus difficult to separate from the rest of the material.  The sequels generally find their criticism in either being too slavish to the original films or not coherent enough in what they were trying to do.

Rebel Moon was constructed in much the fashion of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, in that the two films Snyder produced were part and parcel of the same production schedule, and there was never any doubt that they were both going to be released, especially since, unlike the later Horizon saga, they had a guaranteed, streaming, agreement.  The results are much more like Jackson's work than Lucas and his successors, in that they deal with the material in a sober fashion first and foremost, plunging into a fictional landscape and taking it at face value, and assuming audiences don't need to be guided along in accepting it.  

This is to say, the story was in place, it didn't have silly elements (unless you choose to view them as such, as many internet responses have), and it looks completely modern, with a budget that subsequently needed good reviews and wide audience acceptance in order for there to be more entries, neither of which Rebel Moon enjoyed, and so the future is doubtful.

It's been described, other than the obvious Star Wars parallels, as another version of Seven Samurai, and that seems to have been enough.  But gathering a group of warriors is one of the oldest tropes in fictional.  Even in 1954, when Akira Kurosawa's film was released, Tolkien was in fact releasing his Lord of the Rings, which itself is a sequel to his own Hobbit, where another band of warriors gather, and that is to say nothing of Robin Hood's Merry Men, or King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, the Greeks united in The Iliad, or Jason's Argonauts, which still includes the most famous member of any such band, Heracles, otherwise known as Hercules, spoken of even within The Iliad itself as the greatest generation of warriors...

So the pedigree is certainly there.  Even if you leave Rebel Moon at Seven Samurai itself, is that really such a bad thing?  Star Wars owes a debt, after all, to The Hidden Fortress, another samurai epic (Rian Johnson, director of The Last Jedi, acknowledges the debt he owed to the same genre in his entry).  By the second film, Scargiver, each of the warriors assembled is given an origin, after their spectacular calling cards in Child of Fire as they join the quest, which occasions one of the best, understated moments of the films as at least one character allows another origin to go unremarked, which makes up the bulk of the backstory most important to Rebel Moon...

Because it's Zack Snyder it's lush visuals all around.  No one does it as well as Snyder.  It's not even close.  He's been doing it since 300 and there's no one who even tries, and for years the excuse was, he stole his ideas from the comics he adapted, but Sucker Punch is full of the same verve (and is itself far better than suggested, and an obvious predecessor to Rebel Moon).

To cobble the story, Snyder in fact combines elements from all of the Star Wars trilogies.  He splits Han Solo into a number of different characters, including the one played by Charlie Hunnam in Child of Fire.  The lead character, Kora (Sofia Boutella) is as much the Rey of the sequels as she is Luke in the originals, or Anakin, or perhaps more accurately Padme (or both) in the prequels.  That's what's so fascinating.  The Imperium is the First Order from the opening of The Force Awakens, the bloody conqueror without mercy barging wherever it wants with guns blazing, much as audiences adored the vision of Darth Vader in Rogue One.  The farmers of Veldt are a version of the Lars moisture farm that can be understood, and faced with a problem that is far more urgent than foot soldiers looking for lost droids.  I'm not criticizing Star Wars.  Rebel Moon has more in common, in the final analysis, with Braveheart than Luke Skywalker.  

It's got Djimon Hounsou, carefully drawing on his appearance in Gladiator, as one of the warriors Kora assembles.  There's Anthony Hopkins voicing the robot that explains in simple terms why in this story they're treated like scum (we're left to assume, in Star Wars, that there are latent fears of the droid armies that once ran roughshod over countless worlds).  His is the role of narrator.  In most of his appearances he's silent. It's artful in ways that are usually reserved to Pixar.  Ray Fisher, one of Snyder's Justice League actors, is unrecognizable and yet charismatic in an otherwise thankless role, meant to motivate more than fill the screen.  Ed Skrein is the villain who looks like a Nazi but wears a suit, the real suggestion, perhaps, that in our current times the villains wear ties while the rest of us just try to get on with our lives.  Corey Stoll appears in Child of Fire as village leader, and if you didn't know it was him you probably wouldn't guess, but as with every time I see him it's easy to appreciate his presence.

Boutella has been a genre queen, somewhat quietly, for much of the past decade, although never appearing in something that has been an unqualified success, or a success at all, really, from Star Trek Beyond to The Mummy to Atomic Blonde.  I caught her in a small production called Settlers, a few years back, and I adored that film, and anyone who enjoys Rebel Moon, or even if you can't, would still be recommended to check it out.  Rebel Moon is filled with accents, which is something I personally enjoy.  She's understated and expected to sell her action role in much the fashion that has failed to connect with just about every other available example (she resembles very much Alicia Vikander's Lara Croft in Tomb Raider, or the lead in Terminator: Dark Fate, the latest cinematic attempt to revitalize that franchise).  That alone was always going to be enough to sink Rebel Moon's popular prospects.  

All the hate is from people who were going to hate the results anyway.  Snyder's Man of Steel and then Batman v Superman were incredibly unpopular online, and then the long campaign for Justice League: The Snyder Cut, which ended up producing actual results, left his reputation in tatters, which he unwisely attempted to capitalize on with director's cuts of both Rebel Moon entries.  I haven't seen those.  In this era such cuts have begun to take on the reputation of being inherently better than the original, studio, theatrical versions since they "fill out the story," although I've seen every version of Alexander, and that's my favorite movie, and there's no cut that's significantly better.  They're just different cuts.  There's a very old school of this sort of thing at this point, from the different versions of Brazil to Blade Runner, and I also have ones for Orson Welles' Mr. Arkadin, and a great many of his fans still lament the loss of the original Magnificent Ambersons to the cutting room floor...

The filmwork, the storytelling, the acting, it's all there.  Later audiences will surely have a version of Star Wars, at the very least, where if they don't want to watch nine movies can settle for two.  It's also its own thing.  All of these stories are.  By the time you realize how much Kora's life was manipulated, you can't help but be swept up in the tragedy of it, and the prospect of redemption, which is left dangling at the end of Scargiver.  Do we need to see that?  Will we ever?

I don't think that matters.  I think these movies sell themselves.  Ignore what you've heard.  These are well worth watching.

Sunday, February 11, 2024

2023 Movies Viewed/ Ranked

Viewed/Ranked

  1. Oppenheimer 
  2. Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant 
  3. Asteroid City
  4. The Creator
  5. Napoleon 
  6. The Flash
  7. Beau Is Afraid
  8. Knock at the Cabin
  9. 65
  10. Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre
  11. The Equalizer 3
  12. The Holdovers
  13. Paint
  14. American Fiction
  15. Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One
  16. Polite Society 
  17. John Wick IV
  18. Poor Things
  19. Killers of the Flower Moon
  20. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny
  21. The Iron Claw
  22. Master Gardener
  23. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom
  24. Barbie
  25. A Good Person
  26. Magic Mike’s Last Dance
  27. Blue Beetle
  28. Marlowe
  29. The Super Mario Brothers Movie
  30. Sound of Freedom
  31. Fast X
  32. A Haunting in Venice
  33. Shazam! Fury of the Gods
  34. Sisu
  35. Ant- Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
  36. Sweetwater
  37. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
  38. Chevalier
  39. Renfield
  40. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
  41. The Pope’s Exorcist 
  42. Creed III
  43. The Last Voyage of the Demeter
  44. Ruby Gilman, Teenage Kraken
  45. Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves
  46. Haunted Mansion
  47. 80 for Brady
  48. Butcher’s Crossing
  49. Plane
  50. Cocaine Bear
Other Notable Releases
Air
Anyone But You
The Boy and the Heron
The Boys in the Boat
Dream Scenario 
Elemental
Expend4bles
Ferrari
Godzilla Minus One
The Little Mermaid
The Marsh King’s Daughter
The Marvels
Meg 2: The Trench
M3GAN
Migration
Next Goal Wins
No Hard Feelings
Past Lives
Priscilla 
Saltburn
Saw X
Scream VI
Strays
Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem
The Wandering Earth II
Wish
Wonka

Saturday, January 13, 2024

The Creator (2023) review

rating: ****

the story: A vet in plunged into the endgame of a war between humanity and AI.

the review: Here's another movie I have no clue hasn't had far more praise than it's received.  It's damn near a work of genius.  It's close to a masterpiece.

I'm starting to implicitly trust John David Washington's instincts.  He's had a whole string of fascinating projects under his belt in recent years (Tenet, Amsterdam, and now The Creator), pushed himself well beyond dad Denzel Washington's shadow, and establishing his own definitive screen presence, not the calm cool of dad, not necessarily capable of more, but very much his own, and with the capability to fit in effortlessly into sweeping situations without being lost in them.

The Creator is more than Washington, of course.  It's Gareth Edwards' directorial follow-up to Rogue One, which is the leading candidate for Star Wars fans as best of the current cinematic era.  I personally was not a fan of Rogue One.  No, I was very much the opposite.  In context, now, however, it makes a lot more sense, since in a lot of ways The Creator is a response to and continuation of its ideas, which makes much more sense, to me, in this context.  The Creator itself also serves as that elusive concept Hollywood chased for years after 1977, a movie that evokes Star Wars without buckling horribly under the pressure, a thing that was almost impossible for twenty years.  (Incredibly, although I have no idea when I myself will be able to consider the results, 2023 potentially gave us two such movies, with Rebel Moon also clearly envisioned from the bones of Star Wars.)

This is familiar territory, whether you consider the classic I, Robot stories, the movie that eventually resulted from it, the Terminator franchise, the Matrix movies, or even current fears of emerging AI prominence (although The Creator features traditional robots, its was heavily marketed with the concerns sweeping through the culture at the moment, and viewed from that light by critics and likely audiences).  It doesn't matter.  You've never seen anything like this.

I even say this as someone who loved Jeff Lemire and Dustin Nguyen's Descender/Ascender comics, which have a number of parallels to The Creator, including a child robot destined to play a climactic role in events desperately sought by numerous figures.  Doesn't matter.  Visually the results are astonishing, exactly what modern filmmaking should be accomplishing (and not just an endless stream of superhero movies), but narratively, the results are equally assured, deliberate, and where all the critics complaining otherwise are coming from, I haven't a clue, since the central message is as relevant as it's ever been: the oppressed just don't want to be oppressed anymore, they just want to be free to live.

And that's really what's so great about The Creator, that it finally boils the robot story to what it really always was.  We keep dreading the robot apocalypse, and yet...why?  Why assume they're just gonna want to annihilate us?  When do we figure out the best solution will always be the one that benefits everyone?  That's what intelligence tells us, and the "i" in "AI" literally means "intelligence," so again...why?  

That's what The Creator answers.  That's what pushes it toward greatness.  

Along with Washington are a few name actors, Allison Janney representing the humans and Ken Watanabe the robots.  Isn't the presence of Watanabe itself an indication of quality?  He's another actor who's consistently selected great material, always unfailingly delivering quality performances in roles intriguing and relevant to the success of the films around them.

Trust Ken Watanabe.  Trust John David Washington.  There are built-in moments just waiting to be enshrined in the pop canon.  Help make The Creator a cult sensation at the very least!

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) review

the rating: ****

the story: Indy has a chance for one last great archeological find.

the review: I now have my second favorite movie in the series.  And who knows?  It might even become my favorite.  This is not likely something you've heard about Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny before.  Certainly not with someone saying their favorite is Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.  I don't come to the franchise as a diehard believer.  I caught up with Raiders of the Lost Ark much later than other fans.  To me it's the first movie (and Temple of Doom is just another in the series).  I liked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, thought it was inconceivable that Lucas and Spielberg struggled to make what was such an obvious entry in the series (aliens) for the kind of careers each otherwise had.  But it took James Mangold to reach Dial of Destiny, which achieves its greatness in much the way he did with Logan.

By finally just doing the kind of story that should have been told in the first place.

Henry Jones is an adventurer.  But that's just the stories he finds himself in.  He's actually, in his normal life, a professor, a lover of history, who sometimes goes on archeological searches, which happen to blow all out of proportion.  But mostly a lover of history.  I think Dial of Destiny is the first time that's really emphasized.  By the time we reach the ending (anyone quibbling about what happens is perhaps forgetting about the leaps of faith the other entries ask of us), it's what he always wanted, the thing that he was destined to experience all along.

Mangold previously achieved this with Logan, as I said, the first and to date only Wolverine appearance from the X-Men film franchise to stop worrying so much about superhero adventures and just let the guy be himself, in his own life.  The Wolverine, which was supposed to be the one that fixed that, buried him in a moody superhero adventure anyway.  X-Men Origins: Wolverine tossed him throughout the timeline, and forgot who the villain was supposed to be (Victor Creed, not Deadpool, regardless of how he was portrayed).  Logan made up for all of that.  It told a complete story, and even played out symmetrically with the first standalone movie (by having Wolverine fight himself, it finished the story the first one abandoned).  It also let him by the hero in an X-Men movie, which the X-Men movies kept dancing around, even when it was clear he was the star.

Dial of Destiny throws the accustomed Nazis at Indy, enemies and allies to work off of, but for the first time it's not the adventure that drives the plot (as with a lot of modern filmmaking the screen is too dark anyway) but rather the awareness that Indy himself is the star, which is also why Last Crusade worked so well, because it put the focus on Indy and his dad (which is what inspired the National Treasure movies).  While Disney continues to marvel at the technology that allows it to de-age faces, it's the older Indy that fascinates, and he's still very much up to the task, incredibly, all these years later.  And at five films and a little over forty years, we've gotten to see a complete arc of the good professor's life.

What's most remarkable, perhaps, is that if you were to watch only one Indiana Jones movie, you could absolutely make the case for it being Dial of Destiny.  Partisans will always default to Raiders, while Last Crusade has its selling points, too, but Destiny has young Indy, and it has old Indy, essentially a complete arc unto itself, and a single story uniting both, and a story linking his teaching life definitively to his private life.  It's all there.  That's why it's easy to sell.

Rounding out the cast this time are Antonio Banderas (I confess to missing everything but a glimpse of him), Mads Mikkelsen as the obligatory Nazi, Boyd Holbrook (who was also a standout in Logan), and Phoebe Waller-Bridge as a more youthful audience surrogate in case you're not that interested in seeing old bones revisited.  

They say this is the last one.  It should be.  What a way to go! 

Saturday, December 9, 2023

Every 2023 movie I’ve seen so far

65
The more I thought of this one the more I loved it, an experience that’s worth it on a number of levels. Plus allows me to admire Adam Driver’s acting without much distraction.

80 for Brady
The cast is low energy but it would be a sin against my home country not to partake.

A Good Person
This was the year I finally understood the appeal of Florence Pugh. Another Zach Braff film worth savoring, another excellent turn from Morgan Freeman.

Ant-Man & the Wasp: Quantumania
The problem with recent MCU movies is that they keep trying to be overly ambitious without necessarily understanding how to do it. It’s the reverse of Captain America: Civil War, the third one in that trilogy that was essentially an Avengers movie. Keeping this movie entirely contained with Ant-Man characters both robs it of  the Ant-Man storytelling from the two previous entries and makes Kang look infinitely smaller than he should. It’s one thing to contextualize Thanos, another to just use the villain and actually defeat him in epic fashion before he has a chance to be a threat worth bringing in other heroes.

Asteroid City
My gosh one of my favorite Wes Andersons.

Barbie
Yeah, it was fun!

Beau is Afraid
The director (Ari Aster) has been a cult favorite for a few years now, but ironically I find him most palatable when he’s at his most indulgent and not just trying to impress. A strange wonderful experience.

Blue Beetle
I loved this more in theaters than I did at home. 

Chevalier
Wanted to make one point and either intentionally or accidentally made another. Look, we have a black musical genius who ended up buried by history. Worth rediscovering. Not worth trying to sell the benefits of the horrific Reign of Terror in the process.

Cocaine Bear
I really wanted to like a big dumb movie. I ended up just sort of liking it. Desperately needed characters as outlandish as the premise. But the ‘90s sort of proved this was a very fine line to walk. So I get why it went in a different direction.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves
Basically an MCU movie set outside the MCU.

Fast X
I’ve been along for the ride since the second one. Of course I’m still aboard.

The Flash
I will always doubt public opinion on the face of it when it’s too universally positive or too universally negative, since it becomes clear most of it is just people deciding it’s easy to just agree. This would be one of those modern examples. I love the Barry Allens. I love Keaton’s return. I love Supergirl. I adore this depiction of the Allen household and crisis. Everything else is needless nitpicking.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
I love that we get the secret origin of Rocket. Everything else basically ignores Rocket himself, though, which is the basic problem of the film. If you have the heart you need it pumping.

Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant 
From April until July this was easily my movie of the year, a breathtaking set of journeys built around themes of duty, commitment, endurance, responsibility, humanity, all needful statements in this current age.

John Wick: Chapter 4
Watching it in the theater I wondered if it had, other than its ending, something valuable to add to the franchise. Watching it back later, I understood its merits better.

Killers of the Flower Moon
Martin Scorsese has been chasing The Godfather his whole career. This may be his most complete response.

Knock at the Cabin
M. Night Shyamalan back to his classic roots after years of experimenting. 

The Last Voyage of the Demeter
As an addition to Dracula film lore, I’m glad this happened.

Marlowe
Liam Neeson is taken totally for granted these days since he “only makes mindless action movies.” This is a great take on a classic literary and film figure.

Master Gardener
A classic showcase for Joel Edgerton.

Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One
This is the fourth stylistic reincarnation of the series, more playful, somehow more dramatic.

Napoleon 
Ridley Scott is the unchallenged king of historical epics. And this is probably his best work.

Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre
It’s strange how effortlessly I’ve become a fan of Guy Ritchie in recent years, since for a long time I couldn’t have cared less. But these days he can do no wrong for me. This one’s popcorn enjoyable.

Oppenheimer 
Something would have to come out of nowhere to displace this as my favorite movie of the year. A career pinnacle of a career built out of pinnacles.

Paint
Owen Wilson doesn’t appear in Asteroid City, but in this film found something Andersonesque anyway. 

Plane
On Facebook I’m in a Lost group. Someone pointed out this was essentially a Gerard Butler version of the basic plot of the series. Which it is. Which is not necessarily the only way to enjoy it.

Polite Society
This year’s closest equivalent to Everything Everywhere All At Once is a delight not completely to that level but its own irresistible pleasure.

The Pope’s Exorcist 
Russell Crowe getting back into theatrical starring roles is a good thing as far as career statements go. This one wasn’t as good as it could have been. Almost. Still an interesting role and performance from him, though.

Renfield
The other Dracula movie (perfect role for modern Nic Cage!) is great fun.

Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken
It’s not just Disney firing blanks with families this year. This is an entertaining movie that came and went with nobody noticing.

Shazam! Fury of the Gods
More confident than the first one. Still requires you to believe this is the DC alternative to everything you didn’t like about every other recent DC movie.

Sisu
One of those obvious cult classics in the making that it’s absolutely worth experiencing. A slightly more grounded John Wick. Slightly.

Sound of Freedom
Jim Caviezel has become a genius at finding projects for those interested in him from that time he got brutalized for two hours.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
A kind of postmodern superhero movie that’s less about the superhero doing anything super and more about the superhero plunged deep into superhero logic. Most comics are being written like this these days. I know this is the second one, but I found this one easier to watch. But still a snake eating its own tail.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie
Pretty much exactly what it needed to be. (So the exact opposite of that other attempt thirty years ago which thought it was Beetlejuice.)

Sweetwater 
The kind of movie that gets no attention these days but used to be studio and cultural bread and butter, explores the story of the first black player in the NBA, totally unknown today.

Other movies to catch up on, others yet to be seen…!


Saturday, September 2, 2023

Oppenheimer (2023) Review

rating: *****

the story: The director of the Manhattan Project discovers great achievements don't always have happy endings.

the review: Most of the time, when you see what's going to be your favorite movie of the year, there ought to be no doubt.  Christopher Nolan has been one of my favorite directors since 2001, when Memento was released, and for a few years held the slot of my favorite movie, and in the two decades or so since, he's continued to make movies that I have very enthusiastically received, The Dark Knight, Inception, and Interstellar being my favorites from their release years (2008, 2010, 2014).  Although it received a considerable amount of pre-release buzz, in part because it was scheduled to hit theaters the same weekend as Barbie, I had no idea what to expect from Oppenheimer.  I loved his previous attempt at historical, WWII drama, Dunkirk, but it didn't feel like an achievement so much as an experience.  Nolan is very good at experiences, and has at times been on the verge of letting his talents rest of that level alone (here I certainly think of Tenet, which is its own kind of great filmmaking, but not as clear a statement).  Oppenheimer is a complete package.  As social media personality Logan Paul famously lamented, it's pretty much nothing but talking, but it's a tonal masterpiece.  The score certainly helps, but three hours of a perfect score is something even Terrence Malick can't necessarily reliably pull off.  Eventually there needs to be some concrete substance, and that can be found in spades throughout Oppenheimer.

It certainly doesn't hurt the sheer embarrassment of talent, and this is something even I can sometimes get carried away being dazzled by, but Oppenheimer's cast is stuffed to the rafters, and most of its actors are in relatively small roles while the bulk of the film rests on Cillian Murphy (long looking for that one great role, which this is) and a little on Robert Downey Jr. finally proving, once again, he's not just a superhero great at making quips, very deliberately changing his look and most of the time sounding nothing at all like Tony Stark (though happily our Iron Man comes out of his shell now and then), and Emily Blunt resting comfortably in the background until she commands the screen, and Rami Malik echoing that, and Matt Damon playing first supporting role (the man is as near a genius at selecting material as modern cinema has ever found, so often willing to play whatever role he wants it's astonishing that he's also remained a reliable leading actor the whole time), and then there's also Casey Affleck, Gary Oldman and Kenneth Branagh, Jason Clarke...A pair of would-be next generation lead actors, Dane DeHaan and Josh Hartnett, they're here.

Tom Conti, a respected actor from a previous generation, turns in a chameleon role as Einstein, a pivotal if minor one in the movie.  Einstein's role itself in the movie is genius, stepping away from the theatrics of The Prestige's Tesla though hinging on the same basic story structure, of a crucial moment between two characters that must be examined either by the audience or by the story itself to be understood as so crucial, the kind of storytelling Nolan employed in his first movie, Following, that had one of those twist endings that originally made Nolan himself seem as if he might after all be dismissed as a gimmick, as M. Night Shyamalan was for so long (and so many still believe so today), a fad.  

Oppenheimer is the definitive proof that Christopher Nolan is no such thing.  When Spielberg delivered Schindler's List and then Saving Private Ryan, his own one-two WWII punch, it opened new avenues of appreciation for his talent, and depth of talent.  Nolan, even in his superhero movies, never went broad.  He sought audience approval in scale of spectacle, the way Spielberg did it in the '70s, and never in mere thrills or childlike awe.  For too long Nolan was easy to dismiss because he didn't pursue the "truly adult," the straightforward drama.  Even Dunkirk relies on a series of timelines that robs it of a center beyond the central event.  Oppenheimer is classic Hollywood, a biopic.  Except no one's done it like this before.  

In most of his films, Nolan studied the concept of not just identity but self-identity, and while his characters often find themselves misunderstood, he's never really allowed them to suffer for it, never quite left the impression of an unhappy ending, and yet that's exactly what he does with Oppenheimer, and is thus the answer to why Einstein's brief role in the film is so crucial, why the story keeps circling back to it.  In criticizing the past, Nolan is of course giving us a damning metaphor about the present, since sometimes when you can't state things outright, you have to elucidate another way.  

I've long since stopped worrying about what Christopher Nolan can possibly do next.  Anything he wants.  It's all possible.  Of course he could never make another film, and his work will have already towered over his contemporaries, and the whole history of the medium.  

Saturday, July 1, 2023

The Flash (2023) Review

the rating: ****

the story: Barry Allen attempts to rewrite his own history, and instead breaks the timeline.

the review: It's going to be completely impossible for anything resembling a reasonable popular consensus on the DCEU to exist for years, decades.  Its proximity to the height of the MCU created a huge distorting effect in much the way DC and Marvel in the comics have competed for top placement for sixty years.  Simply put, their coexistence could not be reconciled by the mere weight of pop culture.  The Flash is a last attempt to conclude the DCEU, in the most dramatic way possible, and to my mind a hugely successful one, although it has features that are admittedly hard to appreciate.

Chiefly, its special effects, especially the crucial depiction of the Speed Force, where Barry Allen watches outside regular time the effects of his speedy travels.  After the high water mark of Quicksilver's appearances in the X-Men movies, the superpower of speed was always going to be difficult to depict in a truly satisfying way.  Actually, The Flash opens with a scene that tops them, improbably saving the lives of a bunch of babies while looking like it's the last thing on his mind.  I work with babies.  This is the kind of scene that will win easy bonus points for me.  Otherwise, Barry looks unreal on his feet, in ways Spider-Man never did slinging through New York City in the Sam Raimi movies that set the new bar for the genre twenty years ago.  But it's because, dude's ability is running.  This is never going to look awesome.  Not if you're forced to depict it.  

There's really no way around that.  But the story itself is absolutely killer.  Geoff Johns first wrote this story in the breakthrough event comic Flashpoint, which has already been adapted twice, once in the Flash TV series (third season) and the animated movie Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox, which like the comic depicted Barry brutally electrocuting himself with lightning to try and get his speed back.  For me this is iconic material.  For me, when Barry has to say goodbye to his mom at the end of the film, it means more than Rocket Raccoon, the b-plot in his starring role for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, gets some kind of comeuppance.  It's earned.  

And around that, you've got Barry, the version of Barry Allen that could only exist as portrayed by Ezra Miller, essentially first and foremost essentially starring opposite himself.  And then you've also got Michael Keaton returning as Batman.  This was heavily promoted in exactly the opposite way as Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield showing up in Spider-Man: No Way Home (uh, spoiler?), since you can't hide such a crucial point.  In a lot of ways, it's almost the whole point.  We're in an age where seeing old stars in old roles is supposed to be the selling point.  This isn't even nostalgia but awareness that some franchises were abandoned, or changed, too quickly.  Keaton only made two Batman movies, and while one of them isn't as fondly remembered as the other, everyone was always bummed he didn't appear in the other two.  It's the same impulse that brought Connery back to Bond, eventually, at least for one more movie (even if it's technically unofficial), forty years ago.  This is really nothing new.

The movie climaxes on Barry's fight against himself, a third version who couldn't let go.  It's not really the fight with Zod, the deaths of Batman and Supergirl, although this part of the movie is directly addressing the DCEU, the controversial way Man of Steel ended, the "original sin" that needed erasing a decade ago.  Most MCU movies only ever have the one kind of ending.  Guardians 2 had "Mary Poppins," which is what redeems it for some fans.  That's a rare exception.  Usually the villain is meant to be the villain, and the hero just needs to defeat them.  They don't really learn anything.  They just move on to the next one.  For a long time, that formula worked, and a DCEU trying a different narrative was cognitive dissonance: "That's not what these kinds of movies should be doing!"  They're supposed to be emotionally simplistic.  Their ambition is just building to Thanos!  

In a lot of ways, the implosion of the DCEU resulted in something far more interesting.  The Flash might have been envisioned in its basic shape this way all along, but it has far greater symbolic meaning.  You get to see all those digital cameos, and even the official ones, because this is an ending.  Its story takes on greater resonance for it.  Barry needs to let go, and figure out that it's better that way.  Same, The Flash.  Same.

Asteroid City (2023) Review

the rating: ****

the story: Young achievers are unexpectedly at the heart of an unlikely alien encounter.

the review: So I've really gotten into Wes Anderson, finally, and predictably it's just when critics have gotten over him.  I mean, they've been over him for at least a decade, and I didn't get into him, really, until a few years ago, so it's not that surprising.  Of course I had to see Asteroid City.  Of course it was likely that I would enjoy it.  I expected to like it more, but I definitely liked it.  The appearances of Tom Hanks and Steve Carell actually created a kind of uncanny valley, that breaks the typical mold of total control on Anderson's part.  Most actors who appear in his films fit the mold perfectly; Hanks can't help but be Hanks, and the same is true of Carell.  Everyone else (Owen Wilson is atypically absent, but Jason Schwartzman, another longtime collaborator, is back in a starring role) very much fits in nicely.

"You can't wake up if you don't go to sleep."

That's how the movie ends.  This is not a spoiler.  Just as Amsterdam ends with each of the principle characters reciting the eponymous city name to the audience, and Cradle Will Rock builds to the climactic moment from the 1937 play it's built around, Asteroid City concludes with the cast of stage actors reciting this line.  How much you appreciate the movie is likely tied to how much thought you put into it.  The movie preceding it plays out along two separate tracks: one is a presentation of a play, and the other as if the play were happening in reality and not on a stage.  Schwartzman's character pulls himself out of the play when he struggles to understand why his character chooses to burn his hand on a grill, and so clearly Anderson's intent is for his audience to figure out his intent, too.

"You can't wake up if you don't go to sleep."  There will be plenty of speculation about it for those interested, and so maybe this review isn't really the place for it, but the story pretty happily busies itself with the story of Schwartzman's character in the story trying to have an honest reckoning with himself and his young family, something he's been avoiding for the past few weeks.  Eventually an alien shows up (an absolutely perfect moment, a perfect marriage of Anderson's best live action and stop-motion instincts).  Around all this, as Anderson movies tend to go, a niche community (well, in this case, two) is explored, although it's not really the point, but how the community(s) reacts to circumstances.  

Me, I'd choose, if forced, to interpret the point of Asteroid City to warn against comforting complacency, that in order to make progress you have to challenge yourself.  But this isn't possible unless you're first willing to admit your complacency.

At any rate, Hanks and Carell are the signifiers that although this acts and behaves like a typical Anderson movie, it really isn't.  He is very obviously trying to make a point.  It's very possible this will raise Asteroid City's value for me, later, when I will have more fully digested the results.  But it's certainly another excellent effort on his part.

Marlowe (2023) Review

the rating: ****

the story: Private detective Philip Marlowe searches for a dead man.

the review: Some movies get dismissed by critics seemingly without their ever having watched them at all.  I assume Marlowe was simply because it was another Liam Neeson movie in the era of Taken, when he's chosen to star in an endless series of movies of that ilk.  The other reason would be the pointless crusade of the media to protect Old Hollywood by immediately rejecting anything that could possibly evoke it.  Raymond Chandler's Marlowe was of course the character Bogart played in The Big Sleep, one of his Big Three roles alongside The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca.  

At its heart Marlowe is of course evoking classic film noire, but not as obviously as, say, the Sin City movies.  It isn't shot in black and white, for instance.  The storytelling beats are all there.  The end of the movie evokes Maltese Falcon, even Raiders of the Lost Ark, making a joke of the whole idea of the maguffin, since the real point was exploring the nasty secrets of Hollywood (apparently no way to make a living making movies these days).  Having recently rewatched The Third Man, I couldn't help but think of Marlowe as more that kind of movie, although of course its inversion, since Third Man famously stars Orson Welles, whom we don't see until about the third act, whereas Neeson is obviously the star of Marlowe and its "third man" is another very capable Mexican actor doomed to be ignored by mainstreatm modern Hollywood (hello, Die in a Gunfight!), who just so happens to sound like Brad Pitt.  The whole point of casting Neeson in a movie like this is to draw on the Taken mystique, to find Marlowe credible in all his story beats.  But Marlowe is otherwise nothing like Taken.  In fact, most of Neeson's Taken movies try to find some interesting variation.  I remember Unknown finding interesting things.  Marlowe has more in common with A Walk Among the Tombstones than Taken.  But critics want Neeson to star in another sad Irish epic like Rob Roy or Michael Collins, or Schindler's List.  Forget that they ignore stellar work in Silence, A Monster Calls.

The director is the reliable Neil Jordan, the screenwriter William Monohan, neither of whose work deserves such casual dismissal.  Neeson has Jessica Lange and Diane Kruger as his dames to kill for, the likes of Danny Huston (born for this role, possibly his best iteration of it, in such a pure state), Alan Cumming, even Colm Meaney, Adawale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (playing the role Dennis Haysbert did in the second Sin City, but a heroic version).

This is a version of classic Hollywood, sure, but the version that was possible to make in 2023.  You don't win any points by claiming "they did it better back then."  There are so many versions of so many stories told over so many thousands of years, you don't win points by stating, "they did it a hundred years ago."  Characters like Marlowe are liable to disappear if they don't resurface every now and then.  Eventually no one will care Bogart played him.  If he's no longer relevant, it doesn't matter.

This is an excellent way to bring him back around again.  If the critics want to contradict themselves and claim there's no point bringing Marlowe back and that it's just another forgettable post-Taken movie for Neeson...It's their loss.  For the art of film, this is everyone's gain.  A movie I was very pleased to press "play" again when there were things I missed.