Category Archives: Drama

‘Widows’ Swings for the Fences, Comes up Short

It’s like “Ocean’s 8” just with none of the light-hearted jokes or Rihanna and Awkafina quipping.

“Widows” is based off the 1980s British TV series of the same name, and follows a group of women (Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki and Cynthia Erivo) who must complete a heist to pay back a crime boss after their criminal husbands are all killed in a botched job. Colin Farrell, Brian Tyree Henry, Daniel Kaluuya, Jacki Weaver, Carrie Coon, Robert Duvall and Liam Neeson also star as Steve McQueen directs.

This film had so much going for it that is almost wasn’t fair. It features an ensemble cast, with half of them sporting the words “Academy Award winner/nominee” in front of their name, and is co-written by  Gillian Flynn, the author of the “Gone Girl” novel and subsequent film. It also is helmed (and co-written) by Steve McQueen, who directed “12 Years a Slave” and won a Best Picture Oscar for producing it. The final product of “Widows” leaves a bit more to be desired, but there is still plenty to enjoy in this indie arthouse disguised as a blockbuster action piece.

I have seen “Gone Girl” a handful of times and with every viewing I fall more in love with Gillian Flynn’s script. Her dialogue is fantastic, probably the second-best next to Aaron Sorkin, and there are parts throughout “Widows” where it is clear the scene was written exclusively by her. Characters have lively interactions and quick retorts, and the film just feels “cool.” Then there are some (I wouldn’t say bland, but) sequences where the dialogue and exchanges feel almost contrived and less organic, and while I wouldn’t put all the blame on McQueen’s half of the pen…I’d just say “Gone Girl” had none of those types of scenes, take that as you will.

The performances across the board from the main cast are all phenomenal, with Michelle Rodriguez turning in a career-best performance, Brian Tyree Henry taking a nice dramatic break from his normal comedy work on Donald Glover’s “Atlanta” and Daniel Kaluuya giving probably the most silently badass performance of 2018. Kaluuya has had quite the past 20 months, being skyrocketed to fame and an Oscar nomination for “Get Out” and then taking part in “Black Panther” this past February. Here he is playing the brother and enforcer of Henry’s mob boss-turned-aspiring politician, and he says more with a silent stare or a hum than he does with his limited words.

No one plays cold and cunning nowadays better than Viola Davis and she is everything you’d expect her to be here, and Liam Neeson has some quietly affecting flashback sequences as her criminal husband.

The film’s problem is that it at times seems unsure what it wants to be, or at least doesn’t come across to the audience the way McQueen intends for it to. He tries to add some fancy camera work and just like “12 Years a Slave” he loves him some lingering shots. I enjoy a long take as much as the next guy but there has to be a reason for it; there is one fantastic sequence here but another (or two) that just comes off a bit show-offy. There is so much planning and running around for the heist that the film does slog and drag a bit, and despite only clocking in at a little over 120 minutes it feels like a longer journey.

I really wanted to like “Widows” more than I did, although I will campaign for Kaluuya and the screenplay to get Oscar nominations come February. The final heist sequence has a couple heart-pounding moments and it gives famed faces like Robert Duvall and Liam Neeson a chance to remind us that they can still hang with the best of them, but the points leading up to the climax are either slow, silly or a mixture of the two. Viola fans or those who wished “Ocean’s 8” had more headshots should be more willing to forgive the flaws, and as far as adult entertainment at the multiplex you can do worse, but given all this had going for it on paper this could have been a homerun.

Critic’s Grade: B-

20th Century Fox

‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ Likely Won’t Rock You

The behind-the-scenes drama of what it took to get this movie made is more interesting than the actual film itself…

“Bohemian Rhapsody” is the biopic of the band Queen, following frontman Freddie Mercury (played by Rami Malek). Lucy Boynton, Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy, Joseph Mazzello, Aidan Gillen, Tom Hollander, Allen Leech and Mike Myers also star as Bryan Singer (“and Dexter Fletcher”) direct.

Originally in 2010 Sacha Baron Cohen was attached to this film to play Mercury, aiming to make an honest, R-rated telling of the singer’s life with David Fincher or Tom Hooper in the director’s chair. Eventually, due in large part of the involvement of Queen members Brian May and Roger Taylor and their desire to make a more family-friendly and band-centered film, Cohen left. Singer and Malek then joined on, only to have their relationship come to a boiling point during production after Singer (allegedly) had emotional breakdowns on set and would show up late to shoots (not completely unlike the real Mercury). Singer was fired and Fletcher, who was at one point slated to direct the film anyways, took over. There are more interesting nuggets but I’ll let you find them for yourself. Needless to say, this film had a lot going against it before it ever even hit theaters, but if it was great and the blood, sweat and tears put into it resulted in a musical masterpiece then no one would bat an eye. So how is the final product? Ehhh, I mean, it’s fine.

Long before the first trailer even dropped, Rami Malek was getting Oscar talk simply for his appearance as Mercury. Sporting the porno mustache and (at times comical) overbite, Malek certainly embodies Mercury, or at least a caricature of him. I wasn’t alive during Freddie Mercury’s time but I’ve seen interviews with him and while he certainly has an oozing of charisma and cattiness about him, he never came off as the overly-flamboyant queen that the film portrays him as. Adding “darling” to the end of every sentence, Malek’s performance is certainly not bad but it is almost like what an SNL skit about Mercury would be. He feels like a character, not *the* character.

The rest of the cast is solid, including an eerily similar doppelganger Gwilym Lee as Brian May, and Mike Myers (yep, that one, not the one chasing Jamie Lee Curtis around cinemas at the moment) makes a meta and almost unrecognizable appearance as a record executive.

The high points of the film are entertaining, like when the band is performing (using Mercury’s real voice, not Malek’s) and when they are recording the songs that would eventually go down in history. Every time they begin to get at each other’s throats and it seems like the end of the group is near, one of them will start humming a beat or riffing on a guitar and suddenly another hit is born. Much like with “Jersey Boys” and “Straight Outta Compton” you forget just how rooted Queen’s songs are into pop culture until you hear them back-to-back.

The problem is that we have seen everything, and I mean everything, that is done here done before and done better. Comparing this to “Straight Outta Compton” is a bit unfair since that film is great, but it also features a group of outsiders (or “misfits” as Mercury calls the band) just hanging out and creating songs that went against the normal rules, only to have the main face fall victim to AIDS. But not even bringing “Compton” into the picture, if you have seen a musician’s (or any) biopic then you know exactly what scene will follow the one you are watching. Anthony McCarten has written some pretty bland films (like “Theory of Everything” and “Darkest Hour”) and this really feels like a made-for-TV effort sometimes, it’s that by-the-numbers and safe.

Now I don’t expect every film to be completely historically accurate, Hollywood has every right to twist and omit if it means condensing a story or adding a little tension, but the entire time you’re watching this movie something just feels off and inauthentic about it. And a quick Wikipedia search would show the filmmakers straight-up rewrote history in the third act, for reasons I won’t say here (ya know, in case 25-year-old history can be deemed a spoiler).

And you may not care but I’m a fan of things like this so I’ll touch on the cinematography real quick. Shot by Newton Thomas Sigel, who (allegedly) needed to act as director on set when Singer wouldn’t show up, the film looks crisp and clear (I assume it was shot on digital) so nothing about it feels like the 1970s and 80s. Other films, like “Compton,” “Walk the Line” or last month’s “First Man,” try and add a color tint or graininess to the shot to immerse you but just like the script and direction, skating by is good enough here.

“Bohemian Rhapsody” isn’t necessarily a bad film; it is just a disappointingly safe one. Watching any three minute interview with Freddie Mercury, a musical genius struck down in his prime, will show you that there is so much this film chose to omit about him and Queen’s legacy (again, due in large part to May and Taylor not wanting to risk hurting his or their image and place in history) and this feels like it just left so much on the table. That being said, the normies will eat it up and if you’re wondering if you’ll be able to forgive the film’s flaws enough to enjoy it, I have a test for you: did you enjoy “The Greatest Showman”? You’re answer there likely will apply to “Bohemian Rhapsody.”

Critic’s Grade: C

20th Century Fox

‘First Man’ Struggles to Achieve Liftoff

“First Man” depicts the career of astronaut Neil Armstrong (portrayed by Ryan Gosling) leading up to the Apollo 11 mission to the moon in 1969. Claire Foy plays his wife while Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Corey Stoll, Ciarán Hinds and Lukas Haas also star and Damien Chazelle directs.

When you look up the checklist for Oscar films, this hits a lot of the boxes. Academy Award winning/nominated director and leading man? Check. Period piece? Check. Real life story? Check. Fall release? Check. And I’m sure at the end of the day this will rack up the nominations, at least in the technical department, but I’m just not so sure it’ll all be worth it…

Ryan Gosling is a very talented actor but his skills are best suited in the romantic-comedy genre, seeing as “Crazy, Stupid, Love” and “La La Land” are two of his best and most charismatic performances and the likes of “Blade Runner 2049” didn’t do him many favors. As Neil Armstrong, Gosling is timid and reserved, not too often showing his frustration or sadness about the growing tolls the space race is taking on him and his family. There are a few select instances where he drops the act and breaks down, allowing Gosling to demonstrate his emotional range as an actor, but most of the time it is the mousy Gosling we know from, say, “Gangster Squad.”

As Armstrong’s wife Janet, Claire Foy (best known for “The Crown” and will be seen next month in “The Girl in the Spider’s Web”) gets to show a wider and more constant range of emotions, yelling at Neil’s commanding officers at NASA headquarters (the “you’re a bunch of boys!” line from the trailer) and shouting at Neil to properly say goodbye to their sons.

The film looks and feels like the 1960s, due in large part to how Chazelle and cinematographer Linus Sandgren chose to shoot it. Much of the film is shot using (what I think) is 16 and 35mm film, giving scenes a grainy, almost “home movie” feel, as well as a warm or cold tint, depending. However when we get into space things shift to digital, becoming crisp and clear (and very big if you see it in IMAX like I did), showing the contrast of the bold new world Armstrong was embarking into. The sequence where they land on the moon and take the first step out is awe-inspiring, and it was one of the moments where every person in the theater dares not make a sound.

So the film looks great and is well acted, what is wrong with it? Well, only half of it really works. The parts where we see all the stresses and behind the scenes training that went into the moon mission are very well done and range from entertaining to intense. However the film spends a lot of time with Armstrong’s family and friends and the drama doesn’t always land as much as Chazelle clearly hoped. Some of it gets repetitive but mostly is just doesn’t grab you or give you a real reason to care outside some standard movie tropes.

One random thing of note that almost acts as a microcosm of the film: half the editing and sound mixing is masterful, with all the loose bolts and creaky walls of the rockets making Armstrong’s commands from Houston nearly impossible to make out, as I’m sure was the case. However in other scenes, like one inside at the kitchen table, the outside rain is given too much effect and drowns out some dialogue of characters sitting a mere two feet from each other.

“First Man” is an honorable and respectful film that pays tribute to the men who made one of the ultimate accomplishments in human history, and solidified America’s place as the world’s greatest nation. However when the film drifts away from the mission and tries to get more personal it just doesn’t work nearly as well, and makes everything as a whole feel a but underwhelming.

Critic’s Grade: C+

Universal

Third ‘A Star Is Born’ Remake is the Charm

I love the smell of Oscar season in the morning…

“A Star Is Born” is the third remake of the original 1937 film (which starred Janet Gaynor and Fredric March), following one in 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and then again in 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). This time around Bradley Cooper makes his directorial debut and also stars as an alcoholic rock musician who meets and falls in love with a young singer (Lady Gaga). Andrew Dice Clay, Sam Elliot and Dave Chappelle also star.

It’s crazy to think, but there is a realistic chance that Bradley Cooper gets five Oscar nominations from this film alone (and another for his supporting work in Clint Eastwood’s “The Mule”). Cooper not only directs and stars, but produces (alongside “Hangover” director Todd Phillips, about to be a two-time Academy Award nominee himself), co-wrote the script (also his debut doing that) and will likely get a Best Original Song nod (or two) for the duets he wrote and performed with Gaga. So come sometime in January we could be living in a world where Bradley Cooper, who got his start as the pretty boy in comedies like “Wedding Crashers,”  “The Hangover” and “Yes Man,” is a 10-time Academy Award nominee. I just think that’s crazy cool.

Alright, tangent over, on with the review.

Directorial debuts don’t always go over smoothly, but if last year was any indication sometimes career performers can do a great job on their first swing behind the camera (Jordan Peele and Greta Gerwig both earned Oscar nods for their films). Much like Gerwig’s “Lady Bird” the direction in “A Star Is Born” is pretty nuanced and that doesn’t always lend itself to a film; for example the deft performances in “Loving” work but the simple direction of the story does not. But luckily Cooper’s touch and the way he chose to shoot some sequences are the stuff of someone who has multiple films under their belt and his work with himself and his actors is also very well handled.

Shot by Matthew Libatique (who ironically also worked as the cinematographer on this week’s other new release, “Venom”), much of the film is shot in close-ups, making the audience feel the emotions of the actors and trapping them in the space with them. Like simple direction, sometimes this is not for the best as it doesn’t give actors room to breathe but for what Cooper set out to do the choice worked wonderfully. There is not a scene that goes by that subtle glances or expressions go unnoticed, and you know exactly what a character is thinking or feeling without them needing to say it.

There is one sequence in the film early on that is genuinely anxiety-inducing in that it puts you right in Lady Gaga’s shoes and just the way it is shot and composed and edited is just *Italian Chef Kiss* masterclass; I had chills when it was over and my friend turned to me and said “my heart is pounding right now.” It will be the scene that becomes the most viewed on YouTube for years to come for a few reasons but it is without a doubt the best one in the whole film.

Cooper and Gaga play very well off each other and we get nice (and surprising?) dramatic turns from career comedians Dave Chappelle and Andrew Dice Clay, even if they are essentially glorified cameos. It is also always a treat to see Sam Elliot pop up in things, even if his trademark growl, especially when he is talking to Cooper’s raspy self, makes it hard to make out a few lines of dialogue out.

The film does sag a bit in the middle for reasons I don’t really want to get into, but the first hour this is truly great and the climax makes up for the second act. The performances are emotionally resonating, the songs are hum-worthy and the film is shot and edited in a very impressive and appealing way. I can’t say “A Star Is Born” is the best movie of 2018 but it is certainly one of them, and as far as rookie directorial efforts and leading performances go, Cooper and Gaga have set the bar high for the next people who try.

Critic’s Grade:  A–

Warner Bros,

‘Crazy Rich Asians’ is Just an OK Rom-Com

I thought Awkwafina was wasted in “Ocean’s 8” but after seeing her steal the show in this I *really* think Awkwafina was wasted in “Ocean’s 8.”

“Crazy Rich Asians” is the adaptation of the novel of the same name, and follows an American-born Asian woman (Constance Wu) who travels to Singapore with her boyfriend (Henry Golding), only to find out he comes from an extremely rich family and must win the approval of his mother (Michelle Yeoh). Gemma Chan, Lisa Lu, Nico Santos, Ken Jeong, Awkwafina and Ronny Chieng also star as Jon M. Chu directs.

The past few years have been historic for cinema, with “Love, Simon” being the first studio film about an openly gay teenager and Jordan Peele becoming the first black person to win Best Original Screenplay at the Academy Awards. “Crazy Rich Asians” is the first major Hollywood film with an all-Asian cast since 1993’s “The Joy Luck Club” and for that reason it is important. But how is it as a romantic-comedy in its own right? Mehhh, like, it’s fine.

Films can be basic in story or genre but still find new ways to twist them, like “Love, Simon” with the coming-of-age high school dramedy or Netflix’s romcom “Set It Up” (check that out if you haven’t!). “Crazy Rich Asians” really doesn’t try to throw a wrench in its romantic comedy/Cinderalla/“impress the future in-laws” formula and at times that is fine because the glitz and glamour distract you, but at other points it makes you wish something unexpected would happen. The film is simple, weightless fluff for sure but it is also pretty hollow.

If “Entourage” and “Fifty Shades of Grey” exist to let audiences experience the excessive lifestyles of the 1% then this is in that category and arguably does it better. From the $40 million wedding receptions to the cargo ships converted into huge bachelor party yachts, there are numerous occasions where both the “crazy” and the “rich” part of the title come into play. The set pieces have lives of their own and jump right off the screen, and are probably the second best thing about the entire film.

I say second because Awkwafina absolutely steals this thing. From Michelle Williams in “I Feel Pretty” to Anne Hathaway in “Ocean’s 8,” 2018 has had numerous instances of supporting actresses outshining both their co-stars and the overall film they’re in. Awkwafina (real name Lora Num) plays the former college roommate of Constance Wu’s main character Rachel and is so energetic, random and bubbly that every scene she is not in has noticeable drop in both eminence and amusement (she has one irrelevant response to Wu in particular that had my friend in actual tears).

As the romantic leads and main characters, Wu and Henry Golding have decent enough chemistry, although they actually aren’t together for a majority of the film’s first half (they’re each off doing wedding events with their respective bridal groups). Michelle Yeoh turns in fine work as Golding’s controlling and (overly) old-fashion mother and Nico Santos has some amusing lines as Nick’s colorful cousin.

“Crazy Rich Asians” will be a much more relatable and personal film to some people than it will be to others, although like Jordan Peele has discussed with “Get Out,” even if you take race out of the film meeting someone’s parents for the first time is a terrifying but universally shared experience. The cast is solid and the production design sublime but the familiarity and some pacing issues hold “Crazy Rich Asians” back from being anything more than a typical feel-good, disposable romcom. But for some viewers, there will be nothing inherently wrong with that.

Critic’s Grade: C

I’m Surprised How Much I Didn’t Mind ‘The Equalizer 2’

It’s amazing that even in these “throwaway” roles, Denzel Washington still manages to show why he is one of the greatest actors the world has ever known.

“The Equalizer 2” is the sequel to the 2014 film, which was in-turn based off the 1980s TV series of the same name. Denzel Washington stars as Robert McCall, a retired CIA agent who now works as a Lyft driver while helping out the defenseless people. When one of his oldest friends (Melissa Leo) is killed, McCall sets out on a path of revenge. Pedro Pascal, Ashton Sanders and Bill Pullman as Antoine Fuqua returns to direct.

I really did not enjoy the first “Equalizer” film. I thought it was too self-serious, had horrible pacing and was visually too dark and just ugly to look at. So needless to say I was not looking forward to this needless sequel (the first of Washington’s esteemed career) with any sort of anticipation; and maybe those low expectations had something to do with me enjoying this film a surprising amount.

Fresh off years with back-to-back Best Actor nominations for “Fences” and [sighhh] “Roman J. Israel, Esq.” it is more than fair/expected that Denzel would do a paycheck movie where he doesn’t have to break as much of a sweat. That being said, he doesn’t mail in his performance here and actually is given a surprising amount of emotional range to play with. From grieving the loss of his friend to those classic Denzel-isms like that devil smile or low-grumble voice, this may not be an Oscar-caliber role or performance but Denzel makes sure moviegoers will get their money’s worth of him.

There are a handful of sideplots, including McCall being a mentor to a young man in his apartment complex (Ashton Sanders, best known for “Moonlight”). Denzel, who in real life has spoken up that it is a man’s job to be in the home and be a part of his child’s life, acts as the father figure to Sanders and while the plotline itself is only there to be filler en route to a last minute climatic scene, it holds a nice message at its core.

And I suppose that is one of the film’s issues, is that for the first half there are a lot of tiny “missions” that McCall has to do and none of them really seem important or even get a resolution until the very end of the epilogue. One of them is to show McCall’s mentor side, the other is really just an excuse for the filmmakers to get a manipulative (albeit admittedly effective) heartstring tug, and they really just seem useless in the grander scheme of things. The actual plot, the one sold in the trailers and why people would pay to see an “Equalizer” film, is a little more straightforward than the first film and I enjoyed it, although I have a soft spot for CIA coverups.

The action is much more clean-cut than the first film, too. Whereas that climax took place in a dark Home Depot, this one is set in a seaside town in the middle of a hurricane (where I imagine much of the film’s $62 million budget went). There are some cool kills and moments of tension and I really do think that all but the most demanding junkies will enjoy it.

“The Equalizer 2” is great escapism even if it won’t be memorable. I personally found it to be an improvement on the first installment and continue to appreciate getting to see a legend like Denzel Washington on the big screen every chance I get. There is a small lull in the middle of the film (basically when the sideplots end and the main one comes into focus) but aside from that I was never bored, and think that you’ll find enjoyment in it, as well.

Critic’s Grade: B-

Sony Pictures

‘Beirut’ a By-The-Numbers Old School Thriller

This, “7 Days in Entebbe,” “Hostiles,” “A United Kingdom…” I can’t remember the last time Rosamund Pike starred in a film set in the 21st century…

Set in 1982 during the Lebanese Civil War, “Beirut” stars Jon Hamm as a former U.S. diplomat turned union negotiator who gets thrown back into the political ring when a former colleague is taken hostage by terrorists. Rosamund Pike, Dean Norris, Shea Whigham, Larry Pine and Mark Pellegrino also star as Brad Anderson directs.

This film reminds me a lot of the 2016 Bryan Cranston vehicle “The Infiltrator.” Both are films that star a former AMC TV series leading man, are made by small studios and are about political conflicts in the 1980s that the CIA must try to fix. They have similar feels, too; that stock “thriller of the week” type look and tone. That film was just OK, with the central performance being solid but the overall product being a bit dry and by-the-numbers and it’s a lot of the same here, too.

I like Jon Hamm and think he is great in supporting roles like “The Town” but have always felt his true calling may be comedy (his roles in “Bridesmaids” and “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” are great and he shows comedic timing in his H&R Block ads). Here he is doing dramatic work, playing a man who has lost his wife and ten years later is coping with the inevitable baggy eyes and alcoholism. That being said, despite waking up and putting whiskey in his coffee and bosses saying his drinking could be a problem, he never actually appears to be drunk in a scene. He has some good delivery and yelling moments but the role itself just is pretty bland and doesn’t give him much room to work.

All the supporting cast are doing their typical shtick, with Rosamund Pike playing the well-meaning operative, Dean Norris acting as the growling leader and Shea Whigham being the shady, shifty agent. No one stands out or is memorable, but at the same time no one is awful or chews any scenery.

The film premiered at Sundance in January so that implies the production budget of the project was relatively low, so for that it is to be commended. Shot in Morocco in 2016, the film does feel like it is set in the 1980s as opposed to simply being a modern film with the word “1982” slapped on the screen. Characters smokes cigarettes, bomb-shelled buildings lie on every street corner like it’s no big deal and a countries biggest concern is getting aerial shots of enemy camps (because satellites and undercover jets weren’t really in the mainstream yet).

The best parts are when Hamm is attempting to negotiate, and to see the back-and-forth and wait-and-see that goes into diplomatic trades, even when human lives are at stake.

The film’s problem is that it just isn’t very interesting through a large chunk of the runtime. We get introduced to the players and are just expected to remember their names, and there are never any real stakes. For a film that sets itself up as “Jews vs Muslims vs Christians vs the government vs the Americans” there is hardly any “who can we really trust?” moments and it never lives up the bar set by the films it is clearly trying to imitate.

“Beirut” is a pretty bland film set in a far-from-bland region in a pretty chaotic period in history. Fans of the subject or Hamm may get more out of it than the typical moviegoer but I felt the urge to check my watch or fight back a yawn on a few occasions and that’s a shame.

Critic’s Grade: C

‘The Shape of Water’ May be 2017’s Best Film

The_Shape_of_Water_(film)Michael Shannon is a national treasure and we are not worthy of him.

 

“The Shape of Water” stars Sally Hawkins as a mute custodian worker living in 1962 Baltimore. When the secret government facility she works at brings in an aquatic creature from the Amazon, she befriends it and seeks to break it out. Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg and Octavia Spencer also star as Guillermo del Toro directs and co-writes.

 

I hadn’t seen a trailer for this but had just heard that it was classic, strange del Toro, and the buzz out of Toronto Film Festival and Venice was glowing. Knowing del Toro’s style and previous works and taking critical hype with grains of salt I walked into this film knowing very little what to expect; and I was blown away.

 

This film looks and sounds incredible. Set in del Toro’s version of 1960s Maryland the streets have a neon-noir feel and glow about them and are accompanied by the trumpet and piano musical background score to fit. The big-windowed apartments, the classic diners, the underground government labs, every room and location in this has its own style and feel and adds to an already engrossing experience.

 

Sally Hawkins’ Elisa is a mute, having had to have her vocal chords removed at birth. Unable to speak, Hawkins relies on her eyes and small reactions to get her characterization across and she does it masterfully. You can almost instantly tell what her character is like, mousy and far-too-innocent, and she deserves all the award nominations that are coming her way.

 

Like I began with, Michael Shannon is a true gem and always a pleasure to watch and same goes for Richard Jenkins. Shannon plays the film’s villain, a cruel Colonel, like only he can and from his initial entrance to his motives I couldn’t help but compare him to Christopher Lloyd’s Judge Doom from “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.”

 

Jenkins is warm and charming as Hawkins’ neighbor, a closest gay artist. It is a role that is as heart-breaking as it is funny and he adds a sense of gravitas to every scene he is in.

 

The film’s only true flaws are there are two scenes that are decently abstract and jarring in their tonal shift and/or need to suspend disbelief, and some of the dialogue and visual cues-particularly towards the climax-are a little cheesy and heavy-handed.

 

It is upsetting that del Toro felt the need to add those two sequences because the film would have been unchanged without them and he wouldn’t have lost the audience and need to reel them back in.

 

I wouldn’t quite start throwing the M-word around just yet, but “The Shape of Water” does have brilliant stretches where it scrapes being a masterpiece. The production design is incredible, the score is memorizing and the creature design is phenomenal (this is all even more impressive when you realize the film was made for under $20 million). Sally Hawkins, Richard Jenkins and Michael Shannon are all honors to watch and I will be telling everyone between now and February to check this one out; it is one of the finest films of 2017.

 

Critics Rating: 9/10

shape-of-water

Fox Searchlight

‘The Snowman’ is Less Fun than Shoveling in a Blizzard

Leave a reply

The_Snowman_(2017)_posterIt’s very rare you’ll be alone in a movie theater but that was how I found myself today when I sat down to watch “The Snowman;” and I’m thankful no one else was there to endure what I had to.

 

“The Snowman” stars Michael Fassbender as an alcoholic detective named Harry Hole (I am absolutely not making that up). After a series of murders involving women and snowmen, Harry has to find the killer. If this all sounds dumb it’s because it is. Rebecca Ferguson, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Val Kilmer(!!) and J. K. Simmons also star as Swedish director Tomas Alfredson directs.

 

The trailers for this didn’t look very good and the posters and title of the film almost made it look like a comedy that is playing off detective mysteries. “Jack the Ripper” and “The Zodiac” are chilling names of serial killers; “The Snowman Killer” is not. But still, I love me some Fassbender and the rest of the cast is impressive, so I figured I’d give it a go. Turns out, “The Snowman” is one of the most boring and confusing trips I have had at the cinema in recent memory.

 

Nothing about this plot makes sense and it seemingly has characters that add nothing to the plot. For most of the film, I was trying to figure out and remember which character was which and how they related to the story. Turns out none of that ends up mattering because the big reveal at the climax is unrelated to most everything we just spent 90 minutes learning about.

 

Despite being set in Norway no character in this film speaks with a Norwegian accent. In fact Ferguson and Fassbender are British and their accents are closer to American than anything European. The only actor (and ironically real-life American) trying to do something with their voice is J. K. Simmons, and it is such a random combination of stereotypical Eastern European accents that it was almost amusing to hear him speak.

 

The performances are fine(?) but sometimes it feels like it they were filming different movies, with two characters in the same scene seemingly having different tones than one another, and actors playing their characters one way in one scene and other in the next.

 

This pace of this film is slower than an elderly man trying to shovel his driveway in a blizzard (you didn’t think I’d make it through this whole review without a snow reference, did you?) The editing job was done by Claire Simpson and Thelma Schoonmaker (Martin Scorsese’s longtime editor and three-time Oscar winner); apparently Schoonmaker was brought on late to try and salvage the project and make it as interesting as a post-production edit job can be. She failed.

 

Not that it’s her or Simpson’s faults, because according to the director about 10-15% of the film’s script wasn’t even filmed due to a rushed production schedule. So that may explain why almost none of the character motivations or reveals make sense or why certain characters you think will play major roles in the climax suddenly disappear from the film never to be heard from again.

 

“The Snowman” commits the capital sin of cinema and is boring. If a film is bad but still enjoyable (for example, “Boo 2: A Madea Halloween”) then there can be some redeeming of its soul. But “The Snowman” has no soul, no purpose, nothing that can even begin to be worth your time, money or effort.

 

Critics Rating: 3/10

Solid Acting and Courtroom Drama Help ‘Marshall’ Overcome its Familiar Flaws

Leave a reply

marshall_filmChadwick Boseman may be portraying Black Panther in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but not all heroes wear capes…

 

“Marshall” is the story of Thurgood Marshall, the eventual first African-American Supreme Court Justice, and focuses one of the first cases of his career as he defends a black man charged with raping a white woman. Boseman stars as the titular lawyer as Josh Gad, Kate Hudson, Dan Stevens, Sterling K. Brown and James Cromwell all also star. Reginald Hudlin directs.

 

Chadwick Boseman burst onto the scene in “42” in 2013, where he played Jackie Robinson, and then again caught people’s attention with his 2014 portrayal of James Brown in “Get on Up.” With his performance as Marshall, Boseman has officially completed his trilogy of biopics, doing so with quiet work in a by-the-numbers but effective courtroom drama.

 

Boseman isn’t treading any new territory here, as his Marshall is a soft-spoken lawyer who is more than aware of the world he lives in (the film takes place mostly in 1941 Connecticut). Boseman has a few scenes of yelling, and one of condensed anger, but for the most part he is actually literally quiet, as Marshall was ordered not to speak in the courtroom during the trial.

 

Josh Gad plays Sam Friedman, an insurance lawyer who gets caught up working with Marshall. Like Boseman, Gad isn’t doing anything too out of his wheelhouse, playing the somewhat bumbling sidekick of the duo, and much like Nick Kroll in last year’s “Loving” it takes a few scenes to take Gad seriously as a successful lawyer but we eventually buy into it.

 

The rest of the cast is solid, including Sterling K. Brown as the defendant. Playing a man accused of a crime and not believed by anyone because of the color of his skin, Brown follows the lead of Boseman and Gad and does a lot of acting with his eyes and soft tone, as he has become known for after his work in “The People vs OJ Simpson” and “This is Us.”

 

The biggest issue with “Marshall” is that it is either made by people who aren’t incredibly experienced, or don’t trust their audience. Everything is by the numbers and Marshall himself, despite being the man who the film is named after, almost feels like a supporting character. The moments inside the courtroom are interesting and have some tension, but when we get outside those doors things feel contrived and melodramatic. For example, there is a scene where a person finds out their relative may have died overseas in the War; that instance is never brought up again and was clearly added just to have audiences feel sympathy for that character.

 

The score is almost out of a noir, with the soft trumpet and piano jazz playing in the background. It fits the time period, but for a legal drama at times feels out of place. And from a visual perspective, the film doesn’t look or feel like it takes place in 1941. The cinematography is “too clean” and bright, with no film graininess or tints to add to the experience there are times you would think you’re watching a modern-day set episode of “Boston Legal.”

 

Much like “All Eyes on Me” earlier this year “Marshall” is one of those films that may not be the most competently made, but dedicated central performances and excelling in what its central character did best (music for Tupac and law for Marshall) make it worth your time. Sure, much like Tupac there is a better way to tell the story of Thurgood Marshall than this film, but as a real-life American hero who has not received the big screen treatment, this is a worthy telling of his earlier life.

Critics Rating: 7/10