Movie Review: Ready Player One

Ready Player One **** / *****

Directed by: Steven Spielberg.

Written by: Zak Penn and Ernest Cline based on the novel by Cline.

Starring: Tye Sheridan (Wade Owen Watts / Parzival), Olivia Cooke (Samantha Evelyn Cook / Art3mis), Ben Mendelsohn (Nolan Sorrento), Lena Waithe (Aech), T.J. Miller (i-R0k), Simon Pegg (Ogden Morrow / Og), Mark Rylance (James Donovan Halliday / Anorak), Hannah John-Kamen (F'Nale Zandor), Win Morisaki (Daito), Philip Zhao (Sho).

Steven Spielberg’s Ready Player One is a mess of contradictions – but in the most wonderful way possible. It’s both a celebration of pop culture, nostalgia and fandom as well as a condemnation of those three things at the same time. It’s a film that probably only Spielberg could make – and make work – at least in the way it’s currently constructed. It’s an interesting move for Spielberg – and seems like a direct response to those who want him to go back and do the kind of fun adventure films he used to make in the 1970s and 1980s – proof that he can still do that if he wants to, while acknowledging why he doesn’t do that much anymore. He’s a different filmmaker than he used to be. A Steven Spielberg version of Ready Player One made in 1982 (which isn’t really possible, but you know what I mean) would be much more aligned with the main character of Ready Player One – Wade Watts, an orphan with a horrible home life escaping into a world of his obsessions. The Ready Player One Spielberg made in 2018 is more in line with Halliday (Mark Rylance) – the creator of the digital play world Wade (and nearly everyone else) loses themselves in. In many ways, he is responsible for the situation, but knows how dangerous it all is.

The film is set in 2045, and the world has essentially become a giant trash heap. To escape from the dreary reality of everyday life, people spend most of their time in the Oasis – a giant computer simulation where you can be pretty much whatever you want to be. The creator of the Oasis was Halliday – and he became incredibly rich. When he died – 5 years ago – there was also an announcement. The first person to win three keys – from three different games – would inherit everything from Halliday – who was a lonely, single recluse. In all that time, no one has even won one key – everyone knows you have to win a car race, which is impossible, to get the first key – but no one can do it.

The main character is Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) – who goes by Parzival in the Oasis – and he is obsessed with Halliday and his life, and Halliday’s own obsession (which is basically 1980s pop culture) – and determined to win the keys. Eventually, he will team up with others – the beautiful Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), his best friend Aech (Lena Waithe) and a couple of Japanese brothers – Daito and Sho (Win Morisaki and Philip Zhao). They want one of them to win – because the alternative is that IOI – a greedy corporation, who want to infect the purity of the Oasis and is led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) – wins. Sorrento will do anything to win.

You can pick apart the flaws in Ready Player One if you want to – there are quite a few nits to pick here. The storytelling is more than a little sloppy here – there are plot holes, and plot contrivances, weird moments of character motivation (Wade doesn’t seem too broken up by a key death for instance – the next scene, it’s like it never happened). Spielberg’s film usually click along like a fine Swiss watch, but this film is messy. Part of that is by design – the film is awash in 1980s references that crowd nearly every frame in the film, there is switching back and forth from the completely digital world to the real world. The movie is based on a very popular book by Ernest Cline – and I think Spielberg wants to give fans of the book – and those coming from action and spectacle – what they want. He delivers of course – Spielberg directs action better than most, and uses special effects better than just about anyone.

In this vein, there is one sequence – about halfway through the movie – that will go down as one of the best things Spielberg has ever done. This is a sequence where the characters have to go inside the world of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – and it is an absolute blast. Spielberg, a huge Kubrick admirer – clearly loved recreating parts of The Shining, and twisting other parts of it for this warped version of it – and it something truly special.

I think pointing out those flaws are more than fair in regards to Ready Player One – even if I think part of the reason the film does work is because of its messiness – that doesn’t make up for some of the lazy writing in the film, but I think it does point out the things about the movie that Spielberg found most interesting – the things he wanted to get across, instead of focusing on the story. I do think this is the grown up Spielberg version of the old childlike Spielberg movies (in his excellent review of Ready Player One – the best piece of film criticism I’ve read this year – Bilge Ebiri makes the fascinating case that the dividing line isn’t Schindler’s List, as many think, but actually halfway through the much maligned Hook – when the story changes from a middle aged man trying to recapture his youth to that of a father, who realizes he needs to be there for his kids). I think Spielberg clearly sees parts of himself in both Wade and Halliday (note the glasses on Wade in the real world scenes – he looks kind of like a young Spielberg). Spielberg has always been a movie geek – in love with old movies and their directors. He also clearly sees that it is not the whole world – and that getting lost in it is a way to live a lonely existence.

Ready Player One works as spectacle for me – a fine, fun blockbuster ride by a filmmaker who does this type of thing better than just about anyone. Its storytelling if messy, the message is admittedly muddled – they are selling the film as the biggest crossover event ever, and playing off that nostalgia, while also arguing against that nostalgia. But the whole messy package is wonderfully fascinating to me – and makes me think that even though I don’t think Ready Player One will go as one of Spielberg’s best films, it may well become one of his most studied films. Spielberg isn’t quite the “creator who hates his creation” as one person referenced in the movie is – but he has his doubts.

                                                    

Read more »

Movie Review: Pacific Rim: Uprising

Pacific Rim Uprising ** / *****

Directed by: Steven S. DeKnight.

Written by: Emily Carmichael & Kira Snyder and Steven S. DeKnight and T.S. Nowlin based on characters created by Travis Beacham.

Starring: John Boyega (Jake Pentecost), Scott Eastwood (Nate Lambert), Cailee Spaeny (Amara Namani), Rinko Kikuchi (Mako Mori), Charlie Day (Dr. Newton Geiszler), Burn Gorman (Dr. Hermann Gottlieb),Tian Jing (Liwen Shao), Adria Arjona (Jules Reyes), Jin Zhang (Marshal Quan), Karan Brar (Suresh), Ivanna Sakhno (Vik), Mackenyu (Ryoichi), Shyrley Rodriguez (Renata), Levi Meaden (Ilya), Rahart Adams (Tahima Shaheen), Zhu Zhu (Juen), Nick E. Tarabay (Sonny).

You can count me as one of the people who really liked Guillermo Del Toro’s Pacific Rim – a film that I thought married spectacle and emotion quite well – had some truly remarkable scenes, and was basically blockbuster filmmaking at its finest – even with a bland lead. Unfortunately, you can pretty much flip everything about Pacific Rim around, and you get the sequel. The lead this time is charming and fun and played by John Boyega, who is anything but bland. If nothing else, the movie proves Boyega is a true movie star – he carries the movie on the basis of his charisma alone, because there really isn’t much else here.

Set 10 years after the first film – the war is now over, and the world has recovered for the most part. Boyega plays Jake Pentecost – son of the Idris Elba character in the first film (you remember him – he cancelled the apocalypse) – who is now basically making his living as a thief – stealing part off of the old jaegers to sell to idiots who want to make their own. One thing leads to another, and soon Pentecost is forced back into the jaeger pilot program he fled years ago – this time with a very smart teenage girl, Cailee Spaeny in tow – even as it appears like the jaegers pilot program is all but done. Soon, there will be drones to run the jaegers – and besides, without the kaiju (those giant monsters) – who needs them anyway. You can guess what happens from there – and you’d pretty much be right. Drones go crazy, the kaiju return – and everyone has to mount up, and do the same thing all over again.

This time, the film is not directed by Del Toro, and his touch is sorely missing. Steven S. DeKnight is making his feature directing debut – and the direction is more workmanlike than anything. Yes, there are still giant robots fighting giant monsters, but the film lacks anything beyond that. It takes a long time before we really get to see those fights – and when we do, in the last act, it’s pretty much continuous, monotonous noise.

The cast of the first film was effortlessly diverse – bringing an international cast together with ease. This time, every choice seems more cynical – the first film was a much bigger hit in China than in North America, so they throw in a bunch of Chinese actors. In theory, this is a good thing (Asian representation in American movies is abysmal) – but the film basically feels like just sticking them in there is good enough – they don’t actually give them anything interesting to do. The comic relief of the first film – played by Charlie Day and Burn Gorman – is pretty tired this time around. The most interesting characters from the first film are either dead, or basically cameos (I love Rinko Kikuchi in almost everything I’ve seen her in – she does nothing here).

Basically, Pacific Rim: Uprising pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with sequel culture in Hollywood movies – a cynical attempt to recapture a movie that made money the first time, without really understanding what made that movie something special. A hollow copy of a very good original.

Read more »

Movie Review: Annihilation

Annihilation **** ½ / *****

Directed by: Alex Garland.

Written by: Alex Garland based on the novel by Jeff VanderMeer.

Starring: Natalie Portman (Lena), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Ventress), Tessa Thompson (Josie Radek), Gina Rodriguez (Anya Thorensen), Tuva Novotny (Cass Sheppard), Oscar Isaac (Kane), Benedict Wong (Lomax), David Gyasi (Daniel).

 

I have been sitting with Alex Garland’s remarkable Annihilation for a couple of days now, trying to figure out how best to review this odd, transfixing film. It has been marketed as a genre film – and that it certainly is – it is definitely science fiction, and there are elements of a horror film as well. But it’s a deeper film than most – one that not only encourages but demands introspection on behalf of the audience. The film’s tone is odd from the outset, and it gets stranger the further along it goes. The story hits the beats we expect it to in this type of a film – when a group of people head out into the unknown wilderness, not sure what they will find, you expect them to be picked off one at a time – but not like this. The ending of the film is odd, transfixing and profound. The fact that this is a film from a major studio, being given a wide release (at least in North America – the rest of the world will get it on Netflix, which is a shame – this film DEMANDS to be seen on a big screen, with the best sound possible) is amazing to me. How many wide release films so beholden to the work of Soviet master Andrei Tarkovsky are there?

 

The film stars Natalie Portman as Lena – a biologist, teaching at Johns Hopkins University, who used to be in the military. Her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac) still is – but he went on a mission a year ago, and has yet to return. She has heard nothing from or about him, and has been told he was killed on some sort of top secret mission. Then, he shows up at their house one night. There is something very definitely wrong with him – he doesn’t seem himself, and when he starts bleeding into his water glass she calls the ambulance. They don’t end up at the hospital though – but at Area X. This is where Lena learns of the Shimmer – a strange border that looks just like the name implies. The area enclosed in the shimmer keeps growing, and while you can cross the border into it, nothing comes back. Nothing except for Kane, who is now facing almost certain death? The last group to cross was all military men – so the next group is going to be a group of scientists – all women. They are led by Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a psychologist and also include Josie Radek (Tessa Thompson), a physicist, Anya Thorensen (Gina Rodriguez) a paramedic and Cass Sheppard (Tuva Novotny), another scientist. Lena volunteers to go along as well – their goal is the lighthouse where the shimmer started, but to get there they have to go on a long walk, through dense woods, full of god knows what.

 

I don’t really want to discuss much of what happens beyond this point – it is better to experience that for yourself. What I will say is that director Alex Garland does a marvelous job at keeping every moment of the movie unsettling and disorienting. We are clearly on earth here, yet it almost seems like an alien planet – and one moment to the next, anything is possible. Garland metes out information in the film slowly and methodically. The structure of the film involves Lena being interviewed by a man in a biohazard suit, but also contains flashbacks to Lena and Kane’s time before the Shimmer, which do more than just provide backstory. The visuals, and in particular the sound design – with the strangest, most distinctive score in recent years by Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, which contribute to the strange otherworldly tone of the film. What’s also remarkable is how, despite the tone, the actresses all create distinct characters in the film, which keeps things grounded. Cass observes early in the film that every one of them is hiding something – that they have their own, dark reasons for coming into the shimmer – which effects them all in different ways, and changes their perspective.

 

The obvious touchstone here is Tarkovsky’s 1979 masterpiece Stalker (the great podcast The Next Picture Show is doing their duo next week on Stalker and Annihilation – and I don’t think I’ve ever anticipated a podcast more). Tarkovsky’s science fiction films – which also included Solaris (1972) – his best film – are different from most in the genre, as they require us to look inwards, not outwards (Solaris would make a great double bill with Kubrick’s 2001 – they are opposites in many ways).

 

The ending of the film is probably what concerned Paramount the most – what caused them to dump the film into theaters here, and sell it off to Netflix internationally, because they really don’t know what to do with a film like this. It very well may frustrate some viewers – viewers who want to be spoon fed everything, and told what to think, feel and what it all means. I don’t think Annihilation is all that hard to follow, or even interpret – but it certainly demands something on the part of the viewer that some just will not want to give. For those who want something more in their science fiction – something truly unique, Annihilation is a must see. It confirms Garland as one of the most interesting new directors around – following up his great 2015 film Ex Machina (a completely different kind of sci fi film) with something more ambitious, more ambiguous and altogether more remarkable. The film will likely not last long in theaters, but it will be remembered for years to come.

Read more »

Movie Review: Mute

Mute * ½ / *****

Directed by: Duncan Jones.

Written by: Michael Robert Johnson & Duncan Jones.

Starring: Alexander Skarsgård (Leo Beiler), Paul Rudd (Cactus Bill), Justin Theroux (Duck Teddington), Seyneb Saleh (Naadirah), Gilbert Owuor (Maksim), Robert Sheehan (Luba), Nikki Lamborn (Rhonna), Noel Clarke (Stuart), Daniel Fathers (Sgt. Robert Kloskowski), Florence Kasumba (Tanya), Sam Rockwell (Sam Bell).

 

Director Duncan Jones has apparently been working on Mute since before his first film – Moon (2009) – was even an idea in his head. The film is said to be connected to that one – a spiritual sequel of sorts, set in the same universe, but with completely different characters, etc. It’s odd than that for as long as Jones has been thinking about Mute that the films feels as disjointed as it does. Jones is clearly influenced by Blade Runner – as many sci fi directors are – and it shows in the production design and costumes - although the aesthetic of this film feels a little off – too bright, not dirty enough. This is a noir story in a future setting, but neither of those things seem particularly well thought through here.

 

The film opens with our hero as a child (as many do) – as Leo (who will grow up to be Alexander Skarsgaard) gets into an accident, and his Amish parents refuse the surgery that would have given him the ability to speak. Flash forward 30 years, and he still cannot speak, and now works as a bartender in a strip club in Berlin, where he is dating a waitress, Naadirah (Seyneb Saleh). The two clearly love each other, but she’s hiding something, and then goes missing, prompting Leo to go searching for her.

 

We have a feeling from the start that somehow this is all going to connect with the other story strain Jones is setting up – between American surgeons Cactus Bill (Paul Rudd) and Duck (Justin Theroux), trying hard to be a version of Trapper John and Hawkeye from Robert Altman’s MASH. They are doctors in hiding – there is talk about Americans needing Visas, and turning those who went AWOL in, but it isn’t explained very clearly. The two are charming, but undeniably sleazy – and Cactus Bill is also clearly hiding something – perhaps having to do with his daughter, who he brings to a variety of non-appropriate locations.

 

I don’t know that Jones ever really finds the right tone for the film, and he clearly never finds the right pace for it. The film runs over two hours, but it takes almost half that time before anything actually happens in the film. Skarsgaard is not well served by the screenplay – he is actually quite good in the early scenes, where he is able to communicate how love struck with Naadirah he is simply by the look in his eyes, but he’s less successful as his character has descend into hell, like all noir heroes do, to find out what the truth. Rudd is far better as Cactus Bill, leaning in to his sleazy side, and using his natural charm to get you to like him, even as you know he’s a slime ball. Theroux’s Duck is less successful – he’s just slimy from the start, and I don’t think the revelations that come out about him – and his true motivations – do much except to leave a bad taste in your mouth, as they feel cheap and exploitive.

 

Jones, it must be said, is clearly a talented filmmaker. Moon remains one of the most interesting sci fi films of the 21^st Century – a film that grows in your mind after it ends, and keeps growing, and his mainstream debut afterwards – Source Code – is as good as studio sci fi normally gets. Here though, it almost seems like he was blinded to the stories flaws, and never really thought through how to make this story – or this world – really work. Everything feels patched together, perhaps interesting ideas in isolation, but they never really come together into anything more.

Read more »

Movie Review: The Cloverfield Paradox

The Cloverfield Paradox ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Julius Onah.

Written by: Oren Uziel and Doug Jung.

Starring: Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Hamilton), David Oyelowo (Kiel), Daniel Brühl (Schmidt), John Ortiz (Monk), Chris O'Dowd (Mundy), Aksel Hennie (Volkov), Ziyi Zhang (Tam), Elizabeth Debicki (Jensen), Roger Davies (Michael), Clover Nee (Molly), Donal Logue (Mark Stambler).

 

Netflix’s release of The Cloverfield Paradox was a stroke of genius. We’ve known for a while that they had a Cloverfield movie as part of their upcoming slate, but no one knew when the film was going to be released, or even what it was called. Then, during the Superbowl, they had an ad for the film announcing it was “Coming Very Soon”, which meant it was going to available right after the game. The streaming giant has done a great job getting their television shows watched and talked about, but has struggled to do the same with their movie slate (for instance, I’ve seen nothing on the film On Body and Soul – an Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language film, which they released last Friday – major outlets didn’t even review it). This was Netflix announcing, in the biggest, boldest possible terms that they were going BIG with this one. This movie was going to be an event. And if any franchise could support this kind of blitz attack, the Cloverfield franchise is it – they tried to keep the 2008 original film under wraps before releasing it in theaters, and didn’t even announce 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) until a few months before its release.

 

If only the movie lived up to that hype. The movie is competently made and acted, and certainly isn’t horrible. But it’s also far too derivative of other space films, among them the Alien franchise and Event Horizon, and hell, last year’s already forgotten (but fun) Life. Like 10 Cloverfield Lane it didn’t begin its existence as a Cloverfield film at all – but got that grafted on later. It worked brilliantly in the previous sequel (side-quel, whatever) as an intense, Hitchcock-ian thriller became an action/sci-fi film in its final moments. Here, not so much.

 

The basic premise is that there is a crew on The Cloverfield Space station, trying their best to solve the world’s energy crisis (which in the world of the film, has reached emergency proportions, with constant black outs, and threats of war). On board is the Shepherd Particle Accelerator, which is too dangerous to test on earth, but if they can get it working, would solve all the energy problems. The multi-national, multi-ethnic crew have been working on it for two years, and nothing to show for it, and only enough fuel for a few more attempts. Of course, they get it to work, and of course, it causes all sorts of problem – they type laid out early in the film by a paranoid maniac ranting on TV (Donal Logue) about alternate dimensions, etc.

 

The film is anchored by a strong cast. The main character is Hamilton (Gugu-Mbatha Raw), who left her husband on earth (but we keep returning to throughout the movie, which makes no sense, until we get to the underwhelming final scene when we finally realize his purpose) – who is grieving for her dead children, but goes up anyway. There is also Daniel Bruhl as a brilliant German scientist, who is trying to get the accelerator to work, David Oyelowo as the Captain, Zhang Ziyi (speaking only in Mandarin) who also works on the accelerator, Chris O’Dowd, there for comic relief (and, it must be said, doing a great job at that), John Ortiz as the doctor and Aksel Hennie, as an angry Russian. After all the stuff goes done, they are joined by the mysterious Jensen (Elizabeth Debicki), although no one knows who she got there. That may be a cast lacking in major star power, but certainly not one lacking in ability. They do what they can with the mostly functional dialogue – the film doesn’t give anyone other than Hamilton anything resembling an inner life.

 

The film is directed by Julius Onah – who like Matt Reeves and Dan Trachtenberg before him – is making his big budget debut here. He does mostly fine work. He takes his time with the film, and does a lot with the environment on board the ship. I think with a better screenplay, he could probably do good work.

 

But alas, the film never really has much chance of working, because everything about feels so familiar, so rehashed from other, better films. You keep thinking that something is going to happen to bring it to another level – and it never really does. I’m still exciting for future Cloverfield films – when a franchise is as diverse as this one, a single failure doesn’t mean much – but unfortunately, this time it is a failure.

Read more »

Movie Review: Downsizing

Downsizing *** / *****

Directed by: Alexander Payne.

Written by: Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor. 

Starring: Matt Damon (Paul Safranek), Christoph Waltz (Dusan Mirkovic), Hong Chau (Ngoc Lan Tran), Kristen Wiig (Audrey Safranek), Rolf Lassgård (Dr. Jorgen Asbjørnsen), Ingjerd Egeberg (Anne-Helene Asbjørnsen), Udo Kier (Konrad), Søren Pilmark (Dr. Andreas Jacobsen), Jason Sudeikis (Dave Johnson), Maribeth Monroe (Carol Johnson), Neil Patrick Harris (Jeff Lonowski), Laura Dern (Laura Lonowski), Niecy Nash (Leisureland Salesperson), Margo Martindale (Woman on Shuttle), Kerri Kenney (Single Mom Kristen). 

 

Up until Downsizing, director Alexander Payne has mainly specialized in small, intimate comedies – often about lonely people on the sidelines, just trying to get in. Films like Citizen Ruth, Election, About Schmidt, Sideways, The Descendants and Nebraska. With Downsizing, Payne tries to expand that formula – make it bigger, and more all-encompassing than ever before. This is a film so full of ideas that you have to admire it for its sheer ambition. And yet, a lot of this doesn’t work. There are too many ideas floating around in the film, and none of them are really explored in any detail. The film also takes some weird turns as it moves along, and gets more confused as it does so.

 

The basic premise of the film is that in the near future, scientists will discover a way to shrink people down, to about the size of mice. Those who choose to shrink are doing a favor to the environment – they produce far less waste – and get to live like kings, since their money goes a lot farther. Paul Safranek (Matt Damon), lives and works in Omaha, Nebraska (of course), as an occupational therapist, and is married to Audrey (Kristen Wiig). They decide to downsize – but after Paul get the (irreversible) process done, he finds out Audrey backed out at the last minute. He was miserable in his old life, and now even more so in this one. Eventually he will meet two people that make him see things differently – his upstairs neighbor, Dusan (Christoph Waltz), and a cleaning lady, Ngoc Lan Tran (Hong Chau), who was a Vietnamese dissident, who underwent the downsizing procedure as punishment for her political actions.

 

In many ways, Paul is a classic Alexander Payne character. He’s a white, middle aged guy from Nebraska, who feels stuck and unhappy in his life. That could describe Matthew Broderick in Election or Will Forte in Nebraska, and hey if you ignore either the location or age Paul Giamatti in Sideways or George Clooney in The Descendants or Jack Nicholson in About Schmidt. Yes, Alexander Payne loves his sad sack white guys. Damon is more than capable to play one of these characters – part of Damon’s appeal is his blandness and normalcy. Yet, here, unfortunately Payne gives him both too much and too little to do. Damon has to drift from one scene to the next, and oftentimes, it feels like he’s in a different movie in each of those scenes. Yet, his character remains stubbornly bland. This may well work if those around him were more colorful, but other than Waltz, Chau and (briefly) Udo Kier, no one really makes an impression. Waltz and Kier are great fun as wealthy, Eurotrash (although in the third act when they all of a sudden have a conscience, I was confused) – but there’s not much else to them other than that.

 

Then there is Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran. On one level, hers is the best performance in the film and the most interesting character. On the other, she is basically there to help the white guy along his path to self-realization, and speaks with a pretty offensive accent the whole way through. Enough shines through so that you can see just how talented Hong Chau is – and she really makes the character work a lot better than it has any right to – but it still remains rather offensive at times.

 

Through the course of Downsizing, Alexander Payne and company essentially throw everything at the wall, and see what will stick. To their credit, the film runs well over two hours, and I was never once bored by it. It has so many ideas, how could you be? And Payne, who is often criticized for not being the most visually inventive of directors, really does do some great things here. And yet, the film never really comes together, never coheres into anything. It’s a weird mishmash of everything that never quite works, even if you admire the effort.

Read more »

Movie Review: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Star Wars: The Last Jedi **** ½ / *****

Directed by: Rian Johnson.

Written by: Rian Johnson based on characters created by George Lucas.

Starring: Daisy Ridley (Rey), Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), John Boyega (Finn), Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico), Carrie Fisher (Leia), Andy Serkis (Supreme Leader Snoke), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Laura Dern (Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo), Benicio Del Toro (DJ), Gwendoline Christie (Captain Phasma), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Jimmy Vee (R2-D2).

 

JJ Abrams was the right choice to direct The Force Awakens, because the number one job that film had being the first Star Wars movies since the hated prequels (which I don’t hate, but let’s not get into that) was to get fans back on board with the franchise. If they hated it like they did the prequels, the new series was sunk – not financially of course, but in terms of having any real impact. And for the most part, Abrams delivered in spades – basically giving Star Wars fans everything they wanted from their old, beloved characters, and introducing great new characters t the universe as well. When the only real complaint some overgrown man babies had about the film was “Ew, a girl can’t be this good at being a Jedi”, you know you pretty much hit the nail on the head. But in order for the series to grow, to be something more than simply fan service – which can be satisfying and fun, but isn’t overly daring – you needed a different filmmaker to come in, and do something more with the series. And that is what Rian Johnson has done with The Last Jedi. I understand there are some fans who dislike some of the things Johnson did in this film – and unlike the whining over Rey being a girl, I actually get it this time. But I loved the direction Johnson took with this film, I loved the misdirection’s, and subversions of expectations, and even the tangents that ultimately prove fruitless in terms of the plot, because they are fruitful in other ways. The Last Jedi is the first Star Wars film since I was a child that actually, legitimately surprised me – and that was thrilling to experience in this franchise again.

 

The film pretty much picks up exactly where the last one left off – with the Resistance scattered a little bit, and the First Order in hot pursuit. Most of the Resistance is in one fleet, and they are trying to flee – but the First Order, led by General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson) isn’t letting them get away – and shocking, they’ve now developed the ability to track them even when they go through hyperspace. The Resistance cannot escape, and cannot destroy them – unless they come up with a miracle – which is what leads Finn (John Boyega) to team up with new character Rose (Kelly Marie Tran), to try and do just that. Meanwhile, Rey (Daisy Ridley) as made contact with Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) – but he doesn’t want anything to do with the Jedi. More dangerously, Rey is communicating with Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), becoming increasingly convinced that he can still be saved – although the risk is still there that she could turn herself.

 

That’s about all I’ll talk about the plot of the film. Like The Empire Strikes Back – the original middle chapter (and still, the best Star Wars film ever made), the film has multiple plot threads, and multiple locations, playing out simultaneously, and Rian Johnson has to juggle them all. For the most part, he succeeds, and if there’s a clunky transition or two, that’s to be expected. The film is probably too long – it does run two-and-a-half hours, but it’s hard to think of what you would cut (I know a lot of people will say trim back Finn and Rose’s adventure, but those people are wrong).

 

The film is not subtle about its themes of the past, and letting it go (perhaps this is really what fans don’t like – the idea of letting go of something from the childhoods that they have held sacred for years). But it’s not as simple as that. All the characters in the movie – both good and bad – want to build a new future, but they don’t all look at the past in the same way, Kylo Ren wants to burn it all to the ground – only from the ashes can something new be built. But Rey respects the past, wants to learn from it and move forward. Luke isn’t ready for that – he is mired in regret for the mistakes he has made in the past – with Kylo Ren, yes, but also in his abandoning of the Jedi in general. By the end of the film, the past has been mostly destroyed – this is a series about the new characters wholly now – and hopefully they’ve learned from the mistakes of the previous generation. (The film is also about how a group of strong, intelligent women try to get a bunch of idiot man children to grow up and listen, although they never do – perhaps that’s why some fans hate it?).

 

The film does contain everything you could want in a Star Wars film – there is a killer Light Saber battle that involves Rey, Kylo Ren, and others, which ranks among the best in the series, and more interesting world building, and special effects. There are also some new, mostly good characters – the best of which is Rose (who of course some fans hate, but that has nothing to do with the fact she’s a woman, don’t be silly), but I enjoyed Benicio Del Toro as well as a Thief. The film is also filled with humor for the first time in a long time for a Star Wars film (I don’t know if every writer who came along assumed they had to be as bad at writing dialogue as Lucas, which is why the films have lacked in jokes, but it was a welcome addition. It delivers everything you could want in a Star Wars film – and then some.

 

What I really liked about the film though – what makes it the best Star Wars film for me since Empire – is the fact that Johnson is deliberately undermining your expectations through. Abrams setup so many things in Force Awakens, and then had them play out precisely how you expect them to, precisely how they have precisely, and Johnson pretty much does the opposite. The setups are still there, but this time, it doesn’t turn out the way you think it would, or perhaps how you think it should. If that sticks in your craw, so be it – but for me, it made this film feel genuinely exciting. I didn’t know what was going to happen moment to moment, scene to scene, and that made the film more alive – and also ending up deepening everything else about the film. If we really are going to get one new Star Wars film a year for the foreseeable future (and given how much money Disney spent on the franchise, we’re going to), we need people to take some risks, take some chances – even if that means pissing off some fans.

Read more »

Movie Review: The Circle

The Circle * ½ / *****

Directed by: James Ponsoldt.

Written by: James Ponsoldt & David Eggers based on the novel by Eggers.

Starring: Emma Watson (Mae Holland), Tom Hanks (Bailey), Karen Gillan (Annie), John Boyega (Ty), Patton Oswalt (Stenton), Eller Coltrane (Mercer), Glenne Headley (Bonnie), Bill Paxton (Vinnie), Nate Corddry (Dan).

 

The best thing about The Circle is Tom Hanks’ performance as the villain of the movie, especially his decision to not play the role as a villain, but just as another Tom Hanks character. It’s this decision that makes the performance work, because it makes the role all the creepier, and all that much easier to swallow. Hanks’ character is essentially a version of Steve Jobs – who works at an internet company that essentially controls almost everything, and wants to take over that little bit that they don’t. He’s so likable, so affable – so Tom Hanks – which he makes even the most insidious things he says seem reasonable – something we could all agree with. That makes it all the more chilling.

 

The worst thing about The Circle is, well, pretty much everything else. This movie, based on a novel by David Eggers, doesn’t capture the same feeling of paranoia that the novel did, streamlines the plot too much, and ends on a confusing note. The novel was a dystopia – but I don’t know what the hell the movie is. True enough, the novel had its share of issues – but generally it worked by taking our modern world, and going just a step or two beyond where we’re already at. The movie tries something similar, but because the film never finds the right tone the result is a bland, flavorless movie.

 

The film stars Emma Watson as Mae Holland – who is excited to start work at The Circle – an internet company, that has essentially found a way to combine everything we do online – from social media to banking, and everything in between – into one account. They are a monolithic company – more powerful than the government. Mae starts in customer service – but works her way up – rather suddenly – when she comes to the attention of Bailey (Hanks) – the CEO of the company. Soon, she is being used as a model for everyone in the company – and indeed in the world – and this formerly smart, opinionated young woman starts sounding more and more like a member of a cult.

 

Or, at least, that’s what I think they are trying for here. I’m not sure Watson is the right actress for this role – she has an innate intelligence to her that comes through in every scene – so you never really believe the brainwashing. The movie also changes the ending of the book – to make it more triumphant – but it really only makes it all the more confusing. The other actors in the film – however talented they may be – cannot do much with the dialogue they are given. Only Patton Oswalt – as another Circle executive – shows you what he could have done had his role been better written (Oswalt is scarier here than I’ve seen him before – but they don’t anything with that).

 

The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Eggers. He isn’t a good choice for the material. His previous films include very good films like The Spectacular Now, Smashed and The End of the Tour – which were modest, character driven films. Here, saddled with a narrative with a lot going on, and the necessity of building tension and fear, he really never finds his footing. The film feels like it takes forever getting started, and then just kind of fizzles out.

 

Personally, I do hope that we get more of Hanks in bad guy roles in the future. I don’t think we’d buy him as an out-and-out psychopath – but in this kind of role, he could be brilliant. He already is, in a way, here. It’s just that no one else working on the film figured out what to do.

Read more »