#four-star

★★★★☆

Written and Directed by: James Gunn

Based on the Comic Book series by: Marvel Comics (Arnold Drake and Gene Colan)

The last film I reviewed for this blog before I sort of let it peter out was 2012's The Avengers. Obviously a lot of Marvel Cinematic Universe... er, stuff occurred in the intervening years. All three Spider-Man movies, for one thing, but also any mention of Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Scarlet Witch, Captain Marvel, Ant-Man, even the Infinity Stones. Heck, the first glimpse of Thanos came during the mid-credits bonus scene at the end of The Avengers. And, of course, in between that review and this one, we got two Guardians of the Galaxy films.

I won't get into my thoughts on those two previous films except to say that I understand why these films have been so frequently emulated in the years since the release of the first one. It's a formula for an ensemble movie where the characters are (probably) not known ahead of time, but by the end there is enough work put in to make the audience genuinely care. So with James Gunn apparently signing off from the MCU to take the reigns on a new chapter of DC films, Vol. 3 exists here in a space where the MCU has floundered a bit (or a lot, depending on your point of view) since the conclusion of The Infinity Saga and we see what Gunn's Guardians franchise is going to do to right the ship.

The answer, it turns out, is: nothing. Guardians Vol. 3 does not make any effort to "fix" The Multiverse Saga, Phase 4, or the MCU. Well, except in one specific way: Vol. 3 returns to a strategy that served the MCU extremely well in earlier eras which is that it sets out to make a solid action/adventure film first and leaves all the inter-connected broader universe stuff either to the backstories, the post-credits scenes, or just other franchises/films. And it's fairly obvious that is absolutely the right move to make. Guardians has been a bit of an outlier in the MCU for some time in that they are team movies but not team-UP movies. But the fairly minor flaws of this film don't have anything to do with it feeling distant from any of the Kang/Thunderbolts/Celestials nonsense going on elsewhere. That's a feature, not a bug.

So, what holds Vol. 3 back from true greatness? Mostly it comes from a trend in the cinematic universe model that has been in place since Avengers: Endgame, and that's catering to the most indulgent excesses from the comic book arm of Marvel. See, in the early days of the MCU, Marvel Studios rightly recognized that movies based on comic books needed to do several things simultaneously: firstly, appeal to broad audiences mostly by focusing on being self-contained and well executed films in their own right but secondly, they needed to also be as unassailable as possible by the hardcore comic book nerds who constituted the very core of the movie's audience. Plenty of earlier "successful" comic adaptations (Byran Singer's X-Men films from the 90s, for example, as well as edgier adaptations like Batman Begins and 2003's Hulk) seemed quite often to be embarrassed by their brightly-colored source material. They downplayed the elements that had originally endeared some of the characters to comics fans in favor of mass appeal, often in ways that quickly dated them. Marvel Studios though decided that the thing holding super hero movies back wasn't flashy costumes or somewhat trope-y, goofy fantastic elements but rather a self-seriousness that sucked the inherent fun out of escapism. And, ultimately, they were right.

Very, very right. The problem though? They were almost too right. For about ten years Marvel Studios stuck to a particular formula for making their movies fun and approachable and true enough to their funnybook roots that they avoided hardcore nerd outcry while gaining huge amounts of new fans who maybe otherwise had little to no use for comics themselves. But no one can keep a streak like that up forever. So what happened?

My theory is that Endgame happened. And it didn't just happen, it was (and still is as of this writing) the biggest MCU film in terms of box office grosses. It crushed. Looking at the overall plot of Endgame, it really did feel more like a direct adaptation from a Marvel Comics summer crossover event: time travel, alternate realities, key character deaths, the whole shebang. Up until this point Marvel Studios had been smoothing over some of the more comic-book-y elements of their storylines, running a riff on their Ultimate line where popular, foundational elements of the modern myths they traffic in were given a fresh pass under the guise of expanding the audience. But it worked so well, pleasing core comic fans with it's rootsy takes while gently easing moviegoing audiences into their world, they learned the wrong lesson.

The lesson they should have learned: don't stop doing that.

The lesson they did learn: if everyone loves every risk we take (galactic setting? portal wizards? funny Thor? yes, please!), we got so much more where that came from!

Which starts the straight line that leads us past unmentioned-afterward canon including: dueling myth-gods, literal Zeus, half-hatched god eggs, robot K.E.V.I.N (Feige), alligator Loki, and a giant popped-out eyeball in New York City. Oh and, like, Kang.

Now, to be fair, most of those things would feel a lot more at place in a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. As in, it's pretty weird they aren't the excesses Vol. 3 is guilty of. Rather, Vol. 3 reaches into the vault of dark, over-expository sorta-allegories straight from the fashionable grim-n-gritty late 90s era of the comics. It decides to push boundaries even beyond what a Sam Raimi MCU film felt inclined to push. And it does it all while daring to have a happy ending.

Vol. 3 picks up somewhere after the events of the Disney+ Holiday Special, which is (I believe) where we learned the Guardians had inducted Kraglin and Cosmo the dog and set up shop over in Knowhere with a bunch of... friends? Locals? Refugees? It's not clear. What is clear is that Guardians' leader Peter "Star-Lord" Quill (played with an unexpected complexity by Chris Pratt) is still struggling with the loss of the teammate Gamora (played here with as much nuance as possible by Zoe Saldana given the disservice the script pays her) he'd fallen in love with, particularly in light of the fact that a version of her lives on somewhere out in the universe, at best hostile toward him and at worst indifferent. A gold-skinned guy arrives, wreaking havoc, seeming fixated on Rocket (voiced with a lot less wise-cracking than usual by Bradley Cooper) and manages to mortally wound the mutated raccoon. When they try to heal him, they discover Rocket's creator put a kill switch into him and if they try to operate without removing it, he'll die.

This sends the Guardians on a desperate quest to find a way to save Rocket by digging into the past of his creator, a being who calls himself the High Evolutionary (played with a vulnerable gravitas by Chukwudi Iwuji). As the team crosses paths with Gamora and the Ravager faction she's been running with for the inevitable awkward reunion between her and Star-Lord, the film then begins cutting back and forth to the time when Rocket, well, became Rocket.

It's here that the film makes a choice to swerve hard into the pitch black in tone and visual aesthetic. The scenes of Rocket's creation and the introduction of his fellow discarded experiments are harrowing, ghastly things that might as well flash a bright yellow, all-caps title card: "ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION IS ANIMAL CRUELTY!" Or maybe just, "HURTING ANIMALS IS EVIL!" It's a lot, in all honesty and I was very glad I pre-screened this before taking my kids to see it.

Eventually the Guardians track down the High Evolutionary on a planet called Counter-Earth, which he created as part of his quest to fabricate a perfect utopian society. Here, again with the dark, we get essentially a genocide that occurs without much more than a passing mention by the main characters. And, y'know, narratively it mostly serves as a ticking clock and bit of chaos to keep the team from forming Voltron and making short work of the film's conflict before we can wring a bit more pathos out of the audiences' greater concern for a computer-animated raccoon than an entire planet of sentient and uncomfortably human-adjacent animal hybrid people.

The rest of the movie takes a few more dark swerves which really felt like the movie was setting me up for a huge gutpunch of an ending. I was thinking, fool me thrice, or whatever but I see where this is going. And then it swerves again and says, "actually no, you know what, sometimes things really suck a lot but then it turns out to be some flavor of all right." And it sorta turned out I was right because while I was waiting for the inevitable slug to the breadbasket, I got a different, gentler strike and dammit if it wasn't even more effective because of it.

I know it sounds a lot like I have some pretty major gripes with the film and I did find it's brazen and ballsy approach to the MCU as a bit off-putting. Buuut... the last several tentpole MCU entries that have been trying to stick with "the formula" have been pretty off-putting as well so even if I didn't say anything else positive at all, I'd still have to give it to Vol. 3 for at least failing to stick the landing in a novel fashion. And I genuinely do have a lot of positive things to say about this movie. The dynamic between the characters is loose and feels lived in, no matter what configuration is on screen at the time. I'd go so far as to say the acting is all best in Cinematic Universe for these characters. Not only do Pratt and Saldana do a fantastic job with adding new layers to their performances that carry the backstory in a way that means they have to do only minimal "as-you-know-bob"ing to sell their scenes. Unsung heroes abound as well from Pom Klementieff's smooth portrayal of a woman growing into an affinity for compassionate leadership to Karen Gillan's deft and subtle arc of "How Nebula Got Her Groove Back." Even Cooper manages to deliver a stellar vocal performance, really dragging the audience that extra few feet across the finish line to genuine concern for... well, for a computer-animated raccoon.

The stakes are smaller than expected but the satisfaction of the resolution is so rewarding it feels like it's been a bigger journey than even saving the universe with a dance contest. The soundtrack adds the same kind of welcome texture to scenes as ever, the visual effects are great, and though there are fewer jokes than earlier entries, when they do come they mostly all work. I could cite a few more minor bits of both nitpicking (Groot's regeneration ability seems very ill-defined and at this point amounts to "it's just whatever we need it to be for the current scene") and complimentary (the way they handle the lampshading on Groot's signature dialogue is super satisfying and wonderfully subtle), but I think I can summarize it all with this: it's not perfect, but it kind of feels like exactly what we needed right now. And if that doesn't summarize the Guardians of the Galaxy, I don't know what does.

★★★★☆

Written and Directed by: Kelly Fremon Craig

Based on the Novel by: Judy Blume

I definitely read the book by Judy Blume back when I was a kid, probably around 1986 or so. Unlike other books by Blume that seemed to speak a little more directly to me (the Fudge series in particular) which I read multiple times, I only read Are You There the one time so it never quite embedded itself into my subconscious the way other books did. Which is all to say that I went into this movie knowing I'd read the source material but not sure how much of it I really remembered.

Having now seen the movie, I can say with authority that this is not the kind of review where I have any business bothering to compare and contrast the original to this adaptation. Certain bits like the chest-growing exercise mantra ("I must—I must—I must increase my bust!") were familiar and I did recall there being a lot of discussion about the main characters' first periods and other puberty-related milestones which is reflected in the screenplay. But, for example, I didn't recall the book having religion as such a core factor in the overall plot though a quick scan of the Wikipedia entry for the book indicates it was central to the novel as well.

So I can't say whether or not this film is particularly faithful to the source, but I can talk about how the movie plays as just a regular coming-of-age story set in 1970 New Jersey made in 2023. And from that perspective there is a lot of great stuff to talk about. One comparison I am comfortable making is that this feels a lot like Pixar's Turning Red from last year. In fact, I'd be shocked if Are You There God (the novel) wasn't a huge inspiration to the writers and producers of the animated film. Are You There God is obviously a lot more grounded and aimed at audiences a little bit older (Turning Red definitely Disney-fied the most overtly sexual elements of pubescence which Are You There definitely does not shy away from). But there are parallels between the friend groups the protagonists rely on, the meditation on the changing nature of relationships between mothers and their children as those daughters begin to grow up, and the awkwardness of youthful forays into romance and relationships.

Are You There God? It's Me Margaret tells the story of Margaret Simon (played with fearless gusto by Ant-Man alum Abby Ryder Fortson), who comes home from camp the summer before sixth grade and finds out her father (played affably by Benny Safdie) has been promoted and they're moving to the New Jersey suburbs before the start of school. Margaret's dad is Jewish and her mother, Barbara (Rachel McAddams, bringing an earnest but lived-in energy to the role), is a lapsed Christian whose parents ostracized her when she chose to marry a Jewish man. They've chosen to raise Margaret without a formal religion and are allowing her to choose when she's older. As such, Margaret has forged a unique relationship with God, where she has casual prayer-conversations that serve as sort of a verbal diary.

Immediately after moving into the new place, Margaret is introduced to a neighbor girl her same age, Nancy Wheeler (played with complicated mean girl perfection by Elle Graham). Nancy inducts Margaret into her tight-knit circle and they begin a club in which they talk candidly about their crushes, the size of their bras, and the status of their first periods. A lot of the second act of the film is comprised of a series of loose vignettes where Margaret and her friends try to buy sanitary napkins for the first time to practice with, or prepare for an awkward birthday party where the class plays spin-the-bottle type kissing games. Margaret visits her paternal grandmother (portrayed with force-of-nature aplomb by Kathy Bates) back in New York and asks to accompany her to Temple. She joins one her friends at a raucous southern baptist service, noting afterward that she isn't sure she feels closer to God as a result, but she sure enjoyed her time. She learns about her maternal grandparents and why she's never met them, and struggles with jealousy and mistrust among her close friends.

Eventually Barbara stumbles into a partial reconciliation with her parents, leading to a tense scene where her parents and grandparents share an uncomfortable meal together before the religion issue rears its head and forces Margaret to question whether there is value in religion at all. In the end, she adapts as best she can and the film ends on a positive note where it's clear not all of Margaret's problems are completely solved, but she's in a better space and looking forward to middle school.

The film is sweet, funny, and utterly charming. The cast is great all around and McAddams in particular does some excellent work elevating a role that could easily have been buried in the editing room but works to provide a wonderful counter-weight to Margaret's tale as it highlights they way uncertainty and indecision can have repercussions long after adolescence is through. There is one scene in particular where Margaret is asking about the grandparents she's never met. Barbara is trying to calmly and dispassionately relate the high-level version of events but it's obvious the wound she thought was so old and unserious is far more painful and present-tense than she expects. She casually swipes the tears away, tries to change the subject and downplay the impact her parent's intolerance has had. But as Margaret grows incensed on her behalf, you can see Barbara's pain begin to overwhelm her even as she's touched by her daughter's indignant rebuke of people she's never even met. It's such a real-feeling, dynamic bit of screenwriting, directing and acting.

Even bit players like Isol Young (as early bloomer and source of savage envy from Margaret and Nancy, Laura Danker), and Kate MacCluggage (as future blueprint for Nancy, Jan Wheeler) bring a little something extra to their roles. Director Kelly Fremon Craig wrings every bit of sincerity and warmth from the film's modest hour and forty-five minutes.

The complaints I have about the film are sparse and relatively minor. A few of the more emotionally intense scenes feel a little choppy (which may be the director/editor working around some young or inexperienced performances), a handful of plot threads seem a little under explored (Margaret's crush on someone other than the class stud causes her to break her own "no lying" rule but this isn't remarked upon, even when Nancy's own lies cause a rift between Margaret and Nancy, as one example). I also wondered if the old-fashioned feel of the movie (in terms of filmmaking, pacing, and direction, not setting) might make age-appropriate middle school audiences a bit restless. I suspect this film plays best for adult audiences—particularly those who grew up in the 70s and 80s pre-Internet/mobile phones—for whom I suspect this will be ridiculously nostalgic even if they hadn't read the book. But none of it sours what is otherwise a fantastic bit of filmmaking.

★★★☆☆

Directed by: Ben Affleck

Written by: Alex Convery

Based on: Actual events

Perhaps not surprisingly, the film this brought to mind most by way of comparison was another Ben Affleck-directed inspired-by-true-evenets movie, 2012's Argo. Both are slickly produced period pieces telling stories whose outcomes are already well established (or at least easily inferred). The trick of both movies is that in Affleck's able directorial hands, there is a genuine air of tension and suspense. Argo covers the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis and the CIA operation tasked with rescuing them. Air covers the efforts of the flagging Nike basketball shoe division in 1984 as they try to convince young Michael Jordan to sign a shoe deal with them despite his preference for Adidas. In Argo, we know the hostages will be rescued so the operation will succeed. In Air, we know the Jordans will make the deal, and yet somehow the pre-determined outcome doesn't feel foregone while watching either.

The story follows Sonny Vacarro (played portly but exquisitely by Matt Damon), who is Nike's in-house basketball ambassador. The Nike basketball division in these years is getting clobbered by Converse and Adidas and Nike's board of directors is pressuring CEO Phil Knight (played as mystifyingly complex by Ben Affleck) to focus more on their bread-and-butter business: running shoes.

Marketing Exec Rob Strasser (Jason Bateman playing Michael Bluth again only without the convenient scapegoat of, well, the rest of the Bluths) is content to stick to their old losing strategy of picking up sponsorships for a few third tier players but Sonny wants to make a hail mary run at getting projected third round pick in the draft, Michael Jordan, by eschewing the diversification angle and blowing their whole budget on the one player.

The biggest obstacle to this is that Jordan has publicly and definitively stated he has no interest in working with Nike. Sonny then spends the first half of the movie slowly convincing everyone around him, Strasser, then Knight, that the plan has merit. The second half of the movie focuses on the dance between Sonny and Michael's mother, Deloris (played with room-shattering gravitas by Viola Davis) to give Nike a fair shake. The uphill climb and Sonny's shifting, ballsy strategies to overcome each hurdle are what make the movie really shine and the scenes with Damon and Davis are electric.

Some of the details of the creation of the iconic first edition Air Jordan are featured as well including a memorable performance by Matthew Maher as in-house shoe designer Peter Moore. Chris Messina also turns in a fun, over-the-top turn as Jordan's agent, David Falk. The one somewhat mystifying inclusion in the cast is Chris Tucker as Howard White. Tucker is... fine, doing more or less his usual hyper-verbal Chris Tucker thing, but the character brings very little to the overall narrative. Marlon Wayans's brief appearance as George Raveling is more impactful to the story and feels like the kind of character that would have been merged with White in a cleaner version of the script, but I understand one of real-life Michael Jordan's stipulations to Affleck was that White (a friend of Jordan) be included as a character in the film. I guess that makes Tucker's presence a necessary mistake?

The acting is universally excellent and the script and direction work in tandem to set just the right pace to give the story room to breathe while not bogging down with unnecessary side plots or belaboring the point. Like Argo, this isn't a flashy film that will make you want to rush out to see it again or even stick with you for a long time afterward, but it's got a lot going for it. That said, a couple of minor details did irk me a little. The way Michael Jordan himself is handled in the film is a bit peculiar; he's present in the film but fleetingly and Affleck goes a long way out of his way to keep the stand-in actor's face hidden from view and he says maybe two lines. I get that de-aging or deepfake style CGI (such as with the Luke Skywalker scenes in The Mandalorian) was probably out of scope for the project, but I think I'd have preferred to just let the actor be seen. The other small gripe is there is a framing device using what I presume are some of Phil Knight's zen koan-esque business strategies as title cards. I don't know much about the real life Phil Knight but the film portrays him a bit unevenly, making him out to be both a bit of a maverick-guru as well as kind of a dippy hack. It wasn't clear if I was meant to see the title cards as sage advice responsible for the unbridled success of Nike the company or if my initial eye-rolling reaction to them was in fact correct. Either way, it was a small directorial or editorial decision that I thought added very little to the end product.