reviewza

I got a bit lazy and forgot to review this until now (despite seeing it twice), so I’ll keep it short and sweet. This movie was amazing. I had a few fan critiques: this is just an Avengers movie. I wanted more focus on Steve and Bucky’s relationship (yes, I am one of those. Okay??!! You can’t convince me they’re not in love), Sam and Bucky and Steve’s hilarious friend-trio… I did love Black Panther and Spidey, and the action was great. I guess my critique is just that there’s too much Tony Stark. And the ideological differences should have been explored further.

But damn, do the Russo brothers know how to craft compelling, emotionally engaging superhero movies.

Pictured: “we should have been the main characters”

An uneven film with moments of inspired brilliance, bogged down by the generic, slapdash A-plot of En Sabah Nur (AKA Apocalypse, portrayed anonymously here by Oscar Isaac) and the franchise’s weird Mystique deification. The Charles/Erik relationship has been explored more-- and better-- in previous X-Men installments. But standout, fresh-blood characters Cyclops, Jean Grey, and Nightcrawler (and Quicksilver, admittedly not new but easily the best part of DOFP) elevated the otherwise boring material.

I found it odd that almost every character has a moment in the film where they say how great Mystique is, what an awesome, amazing hero she is. It’s weird. It started to creep me out. It’s like I was watching Mystique propaganda. I honestly think that having a lesser-known actor than Jennifer Lawrence in the Mystique role would immeasurably help the franchise. Her mega-stardom means every scene has to be about Mystique. She even ends up the one to train the new X-Men. Mystique is like the female Wolverine.

I could nerd out about how Cyclops’s comic book origin/backstory is really cool and it seems like they just ignored it; instead of Scott and his brother Alex (Havok, who is boring) falling out of a plane and becoming orphans (plot twist: their father, Corsair, survives and becomes a space pirate!!! Come on, X-Men, let’s do the Starjammers!!) and all that, Scott just exists, then gets powers, then joins Xavier’s school. Well, they needed to shave down on this stuff to make room for long, stilted speeches about how great Mystique is. I get it.

It might be because Sophie Turner plays Sansa, perhaps my favorite character on Game of Thrones, but I immediately loved her as Jean Grey. She didn’t have a ton to do in the movie, but the small moments of her and Scott meeting, and having a cute chemistry already, were exactly why I went to see this movie in the first place (heh heh). I wish they had explored her, Nightcrawler, Cyke, Quicksilver, and poor one-line-having Jubilee more. (Not to mention Psylocke and Storm, who get about a minute of character development between them. I already like this Storm better than Halle Berry’s, though, so I am looking forward to more from Alexandra Shipp.) I read online that Bryan Singer cut a scene with the X-kids at the mall and am so. Annoyed. Why cut character development??

The best scenes were easily the Quicksilver scenes, the first of which, while almost identical to the instant-classic “Time in a Bottle” scene from DOFP, was still funny, exhilarating, and creative. And Evan Peters plays Quicksilver with humor and pathos.

Without the B-plots about the X-kids, this movie would have been a slog of a C- from me. But I so enjoyed those moments-- and am such a huge X-nerd-- it elevated the film to a generous...

A movie I had weirdly avoided because I didn't like the poster, Broadcast News was a very pleasant surprise. Funny, and full of small, human moments that werew simultaneously hilarious and embarrassingly relatable, it's an unsolvable love triangle between Jane, a passionate, talented network news producer, and a reporter and anchorman. Albert Brooks is Aaron, the ideologically aligned tragic nerd that she either just isn't into, or won't admit it to herself. William Hurt is Tom, the blandly handsome (according to the movie; in my opinion he is plain af), journalistically bankrupt anchorman who feels like a fraud in his field. I liked that the move made Tom human, rather than just an untalented idiot. 

Spoilers below.

I had a lot of problems with BvS. But, perhaps because I was ready for an absolute turd of a movie due to critical buzz, I actually enjoyed it a lot more than I anticipated. Nonetheless, much of the movie doesn’t hold up to basic logic-- the movie is rife with “Wait, what?” moments, such as:

Why does Superman’s mom having the same name as Bruce’s mom make Bruce just.. forgive him? Literally every human being has a mother. Is he unaware of that? Is Batman that illogical that a random coincidence causes him to buddy up with Superman?

Why is Superman the one to use the Kryptonite spear? Literally any other hero would have been a better choice to deal the final blow.

Why does Lex Luthor do ANYthing he does in the movie? Bruce is actually inhabiting the mindset that usually belongs to Lex-- “Superman is too powerful, and an alien, so we shouldn’t trust him.” But this Lex Luthor is too daffy and completely evil to fill in the role of, say, Lex in the Justice League cartoon. (A far superior Luthor, by the way.) The reasons he gives for wanting to destroy Superman? Because Superman didn’t stop his dad from hitting him as a kid? He clearly just wants chaos; others have pointed out he’s more like the Joker than Lex.

And Bruce returns Diana’s photo, but... as an email attachment? So Lex still has the actual photo? Lol?!!

These questions can continue, ad nauseum. As can the discussion of Batman killing and using guns, which-- we had this discussion about Superman three years ago. I’m over it. 

Tonally, Man of Steel continues to have negative repercussions on the DC cinematic universe, as what could have been about two vigilantes with ideological differences turned out to be just two dudes who were both gritty rule-breakers who murder people, nbd.

Even the ‘v’ in the title, Batman v. Superman, is symptomatic of the idiocy-masking-as-depth this movie suffers from. Why not vs.? Versus? “V.”, which is honestly most often seen in legalese, is Snyder trying to look smart, but makes it look like maybe Batman sues Superman at some point in this movie. 

Positive points of the movie: Ben Affleck did a great job. There were a lot of good scenes, in particular Bruce’s POV during the Metropolis battle. There were moments of great fun; some parts reminded me of Arkham Knight. I was interested to see more of Gotham. Ben Affleck is also way more attractive than Christian Bale. And he has a voice distorter, which is a good way around the embarrassing Bat-Growl. Wonder Woman was in it very briefly, but she was pretty magnetic and intriguing.

If you cut out Doomsday and kept Superman and Batman as enemies-- or uneasy allies for the time being (it makes no sense for Batman to suddenly trust him)-- this could have been a better movie. As it is, it was over-long, hilariously dumb, but even Zack Snyder’s poisonous sensibilities couldn’t completely ruin a movie where Superman and Batman battle. 

So yeah, as a big comics fan, someone who just loves superheroes in general, I am more biased to like this movie than others. But, please, Zack Snyder, retire. You suck.

A solid postapocalyptic thriller in thematic league with Cloverfield. Clever writing and twists, stylish direction, and a heroine with enough wit and survival instinct to both impress and engage you. I tend to get disappointed in every movie where you see the alien at the end-- this might have worked better if we stayed in the dark regarding the cause of the disasters.

I really liked her duck-festooned biohazard suit; it was very striking, and kind of funny in the context of this horrifying alien invasion.

Mild spoilers below!

Room was probably the actual best movie of the year. In a fair world, this absolutely perfect, devastating film would have swept the Oscars (or Mad Max: Fury Road would have). But we live in an unfair world. Perfect segue to talk about the plot of Room: a woman (Larson) who, as a 17-year-old, was kidnapped and locked in a soundproofed shed decked out with ragged basic amenities, tries to escape her rapist captor. There are moments of beauty in Room, particularly the loving bond between Larson’s character and her son, Jack, played by an adorable Jacob Tremblay.

In the hands of a lesser director (and actors), this could have been a cringey, over-the-top trainwreck, either veering toward schmaltz or over-the-top emotional manipulation. Instead, it was just perfect. Brie Larson completely deserved her Oscar.

Spotlight was a pretty good movie. I don’t think it deserved Best Picture, but at least it wasn’t The Revenant. It tells the story of a group of Boston Globe journalists (part of the elite Spotlight team, that... spotlights... important issues) uncovering the sex abuse scandal within the Catholic Church. Except it’s already a known fact-- the team’s goal, in this movie, is to prove that the higher powers within the Catholic Church know about, and have been covering up, the abuse.

We already know the outcome of this story. But the actors do a great job (particularly Mark Ruffalo), and I think it’s a testament to the editing that a movie with such stakes as “I need to photocopy these documents but the copy room is closed!!” manages to still be interesting.

The best, most moving parts of the movie are the interviews with abuse victims-- peripheral to the actual plot of the movie, considering the general public (and our Spotlight reporters) already know about the individual cases. I think it’s kind of odd to frame the movie around these reporters who get handed all the information on the case, and only act when their boss (Liev Schrieber) forces them to take on the story. But the tone of the press around Spotlight is celebratory of the role of the press, while-- in this film-- I didn’t get the impression that they were going above and beyond their professional duties (Mark Ruffalo’s character, an awkward, slouchy idealist, is the exception).

Do the Ex Machina Boogie!

This review contains spoilers.

What felt like a very good episode of Black Mirror extended to feature-length (thanks to my bf for actually noting that), Ex Machina was a very interesting movie with a lot to unpack about The Patriarchy. 

Ex Machina is the story of a young programmer, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), who is summoned to the grand, secluded estate of genius developer Nathan (Oscar Isaac), whose claim to fame is being the creator-- at 13!-- of a Google-esque search engine. Caleb is there to help Nathan test out his AI, Ava, to see if it can pass for human.

It couldn’t have been coincidence that, in the movie, all the women turn out to be AI. And all the men in the movie are in a position of power over the AI women. The men are the brains (although Ava, the main robot girl, has enough wit to manipulate Caleb into believing she loves him; not that impressive considering she’s a conventionally attractive AI, depending on your tolerance of exposed wiring and tubes), and the women are defined by their sensuality and physicality. Ava, it turns out, longs to be free of Nathan’s experiments and control. She wants to be her own person, and doesn’t want to be Caleb’s object of attraction, either. Both noble goals.

But the reason Ex Machina doesn’t work for me as a feminist metaphor is because, of course, the needs and desires of robots are lesser than the needs and desires of humans. Whereas obviously, women aren’t intrinsically lesser than men. 

What’s interesting, though, is that if I had been truly convinced that Ava indeed passed the Turing test referenced throughout the film-- that is, if she passed for human, or seemed to possess true emotions-- I wouldn’t feel like she was wrong in betraying her captor and escaping. 

Overall the movie had some great scenes (see the gif above), a particularly nuanced performance from Gleeson, and a madcap turn from Isaac as a bro-genius. I was less impressed with Alicia Vikander as Ava, but I think that’s mainly due to the writing. 

I don’t like docking points from my rating because a film doesn’t align with my political views. But I think the movie would have been stronger had I, as a viewer, had more mixed feelings about Ava’s plight. She didn’t have to condemn Caleb to death (a real asshole move) and while being an AI means she necessarily won’t have a ton of personality, I felt disconnected to her, and wasn’t even rooting for her even when the movie was fooling me into thinking Nathan was a cruel sociopath.

Mild spoilers below.

Anomalisa is basically Charlie Kaufman’s stop-motion, feature-length adaptation of the first half of an antidepressant commercial. The main character, Michael, is a fuzzy, depressed middle aged bathrobe writer to whom everyone looks and sounds the same (”everyone else” is perfectly voiced by character actor Tom Noonan). The surreal sameness calls to mind certain scenes in Being John Malkovich, the first-- and in my opinion, still the best-- movie Kaufman has written. When Michael finally meets someone different, he dubs her Anomalisa and they have puppet sex. But the unbearable loneliness and mundane torture of living kicks in, and the movie slumps off to its conclusion. Along the way, there are many clever moments, interesting details, and striking visuals. The movie has an interesting art style-- the puppets are so lifelike, but in a charmless way (I think that’s the point?) and the hotel in which most of the movie takes place is almost aggressively plain (also the point?). 

Anomalisa didn’t speak to me like it spoke to my boyfriend, who seemed to have enjoyed the movie more. Even though grim, depressing movies are usually cinematic catnip to me, I just didn’t click with any of the characters, so I never really lost myself in the movie. Michael, the lead, is beloved by all, successful, rich, and surrounded by adoring fans-- and still is a miserable asshole. But I think from a critical viewpoint it was an interesting and worthwhile movie, and would recommend it, albeit not enthusiastically.

If the Best Animated Feature Oscar goes between this and Inside Out-- another movie I was somewhat underwhelmed by, probably because the animated short that preceded it was so mind-bogglingly stupid, it put me in a very critical mood-- I really don’t care which one wins.

I don’t know what to say about this movie. With the Coen Bros, you generally get two movies: the surface movie and its plot/characters/etc, and an often mystifying tangle of themes and ideas to try and parse afterward. It’s a lot easier to review the surface movie than the complicated, sublime thematic tendrils.

Would that it ‘twere so simple.

So, Hail, Caesar is the story about one day in the life of a golden-age movie studio “fixer”, Eddie Mannix, underplayed by Josh Brolin. His lead star (George Clooney) has gone missing, kidnapped by gay Hollywood commies. His leading lady (Scarlett Johansson) is unwed and pregnant. His boss wants the handsome rodeo clown Western star (Alden Ehrenreich) to headline a genteel drama about high society. And he’s being courted by an aviation company, who wants him to stop wasting his life on garbage (movies) and instead focus on real-life, important work (making bombs and blowing up atolls, apparently).

Underneath that, though, is a musing on the place of cinema, and artistic expression, in a society whose loftiest ambition is to monetize all art. Is selling your art selling out? Is there a higher ideal we should aim for? Is mainstream art less important for being, at times, stupid and reductive-- or is it more important for its easy dissemination? (This particular question is posed in a scene between religious leaders discussing the representation of the godhead-- or lack thereof-- in Clooney’s sword-and-sandals movie-within-a-movie, also titled Hail, Caesar.) 

The movie offers no answers, but hints that, maybe, making movies is a holy occupation. Not that the Coen brothers are biased or anything :P

This was a smart, interesting movie, full of beautiful sequences-- like “No Dames”, a lavish barroom musical number calling to mind films like On the Town and Anchors Aweigh, and full of homoerotic subtext. As well as a synchronized swimming number starring ScarJo as a mermaid, in a captivating Busby Berkeley homage. 

At the same time, though, it falls into the second tier of the Coen Bros’ filmography, not quite reaching the heights of A Serious Man (my #3 favorite movie!) or Fargo. It lacked some cohesion, and, well, I really wanted more about the cowboy guy, whose name was Hobie Doyle. I wasn’t terribly engaged in Mannix’s problems, and found George Clooney to be a little cloying in this film. So I must grade it, in a grade weighted against the rest of the Coen Bros’ oeuvre...

This movie is a warning against choosing a random Netflix rom-com. If it has a one star rating, there’s probably a reason for it. 

The usually charming Amy Adams is completely charmless in this horrid movie about an annoying woman who goes to Ireland to annoyingly propose to Adam Scott (apparently the go-to guy for villainous rom-com villains), but instead gets stranded with an annoying Irish guy. Annoyance ensues. 

Image: bland hot dude who spends the whole movie in his front yard

What would happen if you and some dude in Arizona had a mental connection, causing either of you to have embarrassing fits whenever something bad happened to the other? What if suddenly you realized you could talk to one another? (Although, inconveniently, only aloud.)

You probably wouldn’t go around talking to yourself, loudly, in public. That would make you look insane. Enter the main plot conflict of In Your Eyes, which could have been resolved if Female Lead had just bought, in her endless spare time, with her endless money, a bluetooth headset. Sure, she’d look like a d-bag, but she’d look like a sane d-bag.

The characters in this movie are painted in such broad strokes, they may as well be archetypes on the cover of a romance novel. He-- a sexy ne’er do well with a criminal record. She-- a pampered rich girl with a mean husband. They’re walking cliches, to the point where I’m surprised this movie was penned by the usually-subversive Joss Whedon. While the concept was neat enough, the movie did absolutely nothing clever with it (other than a two minute scene where Female Lead helped Male Lead hit on a girl, one of the highlights of the movie), and the characters were, as aforesaid, supremely bland archetypes.

You know what would have been cool? What if she had been the ex-con, and he the pampered rich boy? What if the movie took place a year after Female Lead and Male Lead got divorced, and they had to live with having a psychic connection that wouldn’t go away? I know it’s pointless to throw out plot ideas, but the fact that I had time to think of better plots is a dire sign for this film.

.

This was a movie I’d seen about half of, on TV, like ten years ago and kept meaning to watch. Then, it appeared on AV Club’s top rom-com list, and I decided to bite the bullet and see if it was actually as funny as I remember.

Just Friends is a nerd fantasy movie at heart-- what if you got really hot and successful after high school, and went back looking like, say, Ryan Reynolds? (Or in my case, the female equivalent?) It also deals with the thorny issue of the friendzone (the second movie of the night to do so!); there’s a pat realization along the way that you can’t force someone to reciprocate feelings. 

The acting in the movie is really stellar. Ryan Reynolds and Anna Faris (playing a ditzy starlet with ambitions to be a Serious Musician) both go over-the-top in the best possible way here, making magic out of gags that might otherwise have seemed hacky. Reynolds does a great job as a guy with the perfect life, who comes apart completely at the seams when he’s forced to come back to his hometown, and reconcile his slick Hollywood persona with the goodhearted doormat of a dork he used to be. And while he lost the weight that made his youth a hell, he didn’t lose the accompanying self-loathing.

I find narratives about people who’ve lost a lot of weight to be fascinating. Society treats you so differently based on weight-- like it’s a moral failing to overeat. It’s a message we internalize, and I think this movie explores it a bit. Reynolds is treated very well by his Hollywood friends, but the people back home, who knew him when he was fat, treat him with much less respect. Part of this is Meet the Parents-style cringe humor, but I think it’s also a reflection of the way fat is so politicized and internalized. And even though this is a fat-suit movie, the jokes aren’t inviting you to laugh at Reynolds’s character for having been fat. You mainly feel bad for him because of the ostracism he suffered, and understand why he’s so bitter in the present.

Anyway, I might  look like an idiot for overanalyzing and loving this movie, which has a 42% on Rotten Tomatoes, so much, but it was amazing. So there. 

Our second movie in @jordancooperlalala and my Valentine’s Day rom-com romp. This was Jordan’s pick; he was shocked I’d never seen it.

So I guess the epic debate in this movie is: Duckie or Blane? Personally, I found Blane to be a better match for Molly Ringwald’s working-class high schooler, Andie, a girl with whom apparently EVERY boy in school is in love. First of all, Andie actually likes Blane. Romantically. That’s pretty important in a relationship. Even though she apparently feels some positive sentiment toward screeching annoyance Duckie, he’s very friendzoned, as well he should be. 

Duckie’s character hit way too close to home. He reminded me of actual guys I knew in high school, whereas the escapism of rom-coms is supposed to be that you fall in love with fictional guys who are way better than the guys you know IRL. Is Blane all that great? Eh. He’s cool. He shed a few sincere tears, which is a bit heart-melting.

I personally thought sassy, villainous James Spader was the best guy in the movie, but what do I know.

The real tragedy of this movie is what Andie does to a perfectly cute 50s-style prom dress. She turns it into a horrid bag-like smock. It was so flattering before. WHY WHY WHY. Oh well, I guess her fashion sense shows she has personality. Just like Duckie’s fashion sense. Yawn. Give me a guy who cries while running down the hallway, any day.