Under the Silver Lake

2019’s Under the Silver Lake, written and directed by David Robert Mitchell .

Starring Andrew Garfield, Riley Keough, Riki Lindhome, David Yow, Jimmi Simpson, Patrick Fischler, Don McManus, Topher Grace, Grace Van Patten, Jeremy Bobb, Callie Hernandez, Summer Bishill, and Deborah Geffner.

What is it about?

Taking place in current day Los Angeles, unemployed slacker Sam (Andrew Garfield) one day meets his fetching neighbour, Sarah (Riley Keough). They somewhat hit it off, so Sam is taken aback when he discovers the next day that she moved out abruptly. Resolved to solving the mystery of where she went and why, Sam meanders around a bizarre combination of environments and characters to track down clues, and decipher symbols and codes. Encountering a range of phenomena such as cultists, Nintendo Power archives, conspiracy theories, comic book synergy, pirates, subliminal messages, and more, it all heads to a conclusion regarding whether the universe has meaning or not, and if Sam will find a way to pay his landlord his monthly rent.

Why is it worth seeing?

Although there is some debate about the listing of designated cult classics (Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Big Lebowski, and The Room being a few), in my mind there is a strong contender for an addition to the list- Under the Silver Lake. It has all the ingredients of a quirky, flawed masterpiece, from its unique spin on its subject matter (think Chinatown if Jeffrey Lebowski or Doc Sportello were on the case), to its surreal left turns, to its existential laments on a crude universe’s plans for us. Conversations about whether or not the film is hilarious (or just in bad taste) will inspire many an impassioned argument- just the sort of fervor cult classics thrive on.


There was a fair amount of anticipation for writer/director David Robert Mitchell’s next project, after his last film, 2014’s It Follows, gave the horror world a morbid shot in the arm. Possessing a fantastic idea framed by a great sense of tone and sustained suspense, Mitchell’s visuals (inspired by photographer Gregory Crewdson) were very effective for the genre. At times, the feeling for Lake is similar, in its alienating sense of inevitability, but Mitchell also makes a compelling thriller, and as mentioned previously, a shaggy dog comedy. It’s impressive how he pulls it all together. As Andrew Garfield (shedding every bit of charisma he may have had from the Spider Man series) ineptly gallops around L.A (as multi faceted a locale as it gets, as usual), he is simultaneously thwarted and galvanized by a dense cloud of meaning- at least to somebody, maybe just not him.

Mitchell never allows a crackerjack drum tight mystery to fully play out- he’d rather cut to a random bit of toilet humour or introduce yet another character who’s happy to point out how much Garfield’s not-sleuth character stinks. Critics of the film will point out that it is completely preoccupied with objectifying women, a fair charge if you take a film about a deadbeat slacker who’s obsessed with symbols that come in video game magazines to solve mysteries about cults looking into “ascension” seriously. For everyone else, it’s another opportunity for Garfield to indifferently wonder aloud about the world’s circumstances. Another fair point is how terrible of a person Garfield’s character is- his Sam makes no bones about his hatred of employment, of homeless people that he’s dangerously close to emulating, of beating up naughty children, and to sowing his wild oats with pretty much anything that moves. In other words, he’s like a lot of young males, adrift in their lives, wondering about their role in an indifferent universe, trapped in class warfare that deems its citizens powerless. His struggles to find meaning, in something, make him an ideal candidate for post millennial representation for young males. Who else wishes they could actually understand how the universe works instead of working another day for the man?


Somewhat similar to Wolf of Wall Street’s sense of excess, the film’s length when considering the level of seriousness can make it drag at times. But perhaps that’s because you were so busy guffawing at yet another blown opportunity to investigate god-knows-what, you missed what random and bizarre thing happened next. Or you were sucked into solving a mystery, of some kind- that tends to stick around in your mind, like something a skunk would spray. Something to think about when the rewatch with a gang of friends happens to celebrate its greatness, we all want it that way.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

X Men: Dark Phoenix

2019’s X-Men: Dark Phoenix, written and directed by Simon Kinberg.

Starring James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, Alexandra Shipp, Evan Peters, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Jessica Chastain, Scott Shepard, and Ato Essandoh.

What is it about?

Set in the 90’s, the Xmen squad are friendly with the U.S. government and trusted to protect national security. With a space flight’s crew in jeopardy, the squad goes up to help the astronauts, and Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) absorbs a wave of cosmic energy. Jean’s already formidable powers become as volatile as her personality, and she catches the eye of leader of an alien race called the D’bari, Vuk (Jessica Chastain). With Vuk trying to control Jean’s powers, Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) will have to lead the X-Men to try to help Jean before she becomes a danger to herself and everyone else.

Why is it worth seeing?

In the commercial golden age of comic book movies, it’s difficult to recommend X Men: Dark Phoenix. While Disney/Marvel have decimated the competition (sometimes just by showing up), Fox’s output, as progenitors of the 21^st century comic book movie craze, have continued to shrink in value. For a series based on mutants who have superhuman abilities, the studio’s follies and lack of execution have made them appear far too human when compared to the Marvel machine.


Part of the issue with Fox’ efforts are echoed in Phoenix- that of trotting out the same product again and expecting different results. We’d already seen diminishing returns from some of the series’ previous films (X Men: Apocalypse, and the Deadpool’s- which I like on their own merits but contribute little to the overall franchise), but combine that with the fact that this film is not only the same story as 2006’s X Men: The Last Stand, but has the exact same writer (Simon Kinsberg, also taking on directing duties). The stale results therefore feel almost as episodic as a Television series, in a franchise that is starting to feel more like an inexhaustible never ending horror series, than a dynamic superhero one.


Casting is as crucial as anything when it comes to both satisfying parents’ basement internet trolls, and creating solid characters- so it felt like a home run when Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence signed on for the quixotic role of the shape shifting exotica tinged spy, Mystique. But very quickly, it became apparent that Lawrence, for whatever reason, wasn’t suited for life as a blue siren- it really says something that the far less celebrated Rebecca Romijn seemed to do more in the role, with the mystery of the sleek spy satisfying the maxim of less is more. Concurrently, the series’ incredible luck with casting Hugh Jackman in the role of Wolverine ran out after there was just nothing more to tell about the character, with Logan appearing prominently in 8 of the 12 X Men universe films. With someone needing to fill his adamantium shoes, for my money, the biggest error the studio made was in not giving Evan Peters’ Quicksilver speedster a more prominent role. Blessed with the most popular (and dynamic) scenes in the retconned universe, Peters looked the right age to explore his character’s maturation, had a complicated enough back story (the child of Magneto!) to explore, and had powers that could be centrepieces of each film. But Fox stuck with a less potent version of Charles Xavier (Charles McAvoy is not Patrick Stewart- no one is), Jennifer Lawrence being stuck in blue make up movie jail, Michael Fassbender (currently having one hell of a career correction), and Nicholas Hoult (also bathed in blue makeup- and fur too). One of the reasons Marvel has been so successful is in their ability to effortlessly introduce new characters, before teaming them up, time after time. But Fox couldn’t do that- and we get the mercy of several actors finishing up their contracts, and feel oddly relieved for them.

With Fox only having one more contractual film remaining as they are absorbed into the Disney Leviathan, their X Men legacy will go down in the history books as putting a significant foot forwards into the century’s popular zeitgeist of capes and lasers, before imploding in a confusing fog of missed opportunities and time travel shenanigans. Phoenix completely embodies that, given its carbon copy vibes, lackluster fight scenes, and a nagging feeling this story has already been told (it has). With the plethora of comic book movies being released, it’s practically a double negative. With the quality control being on the wane, it’s no surprise Phoenix has moviegoers staying away- it would be nice if the actors weren’t also clamoring to get out while they still can.

Rating:

2.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Her

2013’s Her, written and directed by Spike Jonze.

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Chriss Pratt, Rooney Mara, Amy Adams, Matt Letscher, Kristen Wiig, Olivia Wilde, Lynn Adrianna, Lisa Renee Pitts, Gabe Gomez, and Brian Cox.

Winner of an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (Spike Jonze).

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Production Design (K.K. Barrett and Gene Serdena), Best Song (Karen O), and Best Score (William Butler and Owen Pallett).

 

What is it about?

Set in the near future in Los Angeles, lonely divorcee Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) decides to purchase an Operating System (OS) that has features of Artificial Intelligence. The A.I. goes by Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), and the two of them hit it off. Theo continues his life of working as a ghost letter writer, spending time with his best friend, Amy (Amy Adams), and getting to know Samantha- until things grow complicated.

Why is it worth seeing?

Her is the rarest of creatures, a relationship movie that is able to penetrate the nitty gritty and messiness of human relationships- without making us dread them. It features a future in which despite gobs of technology existing (and the endless possibilities in which to get lost in it), real connection is possible. The result is, well, connective.


Centred square in the middle of the story is Joaquin Phoenix’s Theodore. He plays a man, lonely, pretty much broken- but not because of his living in a Blade Runner  dystopian future. Instead, his cautious disposition is self imposed, furthered along by shrinking into technology. His past relationships, told in occasional stunning flashbacks, have left a hole in him that he desperately wants to fill. You can see that in his reaching out to his best friend, or while on a blind date- that sense of child-like joy and synergy that one feels with life’s surprises and shared bio chemistry. So when he learns of an operating system that features Artificial Intelligence, he tries it out, and he is as overwhelmed by the prospects of what is possible, as we are. Phoenix’ reactions as he gets to know a self aware consciousness is spell binding, because in his evolution, we get to experience that universal thrill of falling for somebody, at marveling at other people’s quirks, those tics and features that make us experience the joy of love. But it’s more than just glorified meet cute guppy squishiness- what makes the performance so holistic is his frustrations, his inability to always communicate his desires, to be whom he wants to be.


Almost as prominent, if only by utterance, is Scarlett Johansson’s performance as a sentient artificial intelligence. Few can play as glossy and abstract as well as Johansson (Under the Skin, Lucy, Ghost in the Machine), so in some ways this performance, as a sole disembodied consciousness, is her spirit animal of sorts. It’s entrancing, the sort of thing that telephone customer service managers working at swindling data companies could only dream of. Sounding the way she does, it feels like there isn’t anything she couldn’t convince you to do, with a timbre that can flex as easily from inquisitive to sexy to confident to furious- all in a nano second. For something so unattached to an actual body, it weighs more than most people.


But that’s the thing about Jonze’ screenplay. It makes all the characters so real, even the ones that aren’t… real. Jonze would go on to win an Oscar for best original screenplay, and still doesn’t get enough credit for the seamlessness with which we see the infinitesimal results of all the characters’ relationships bouncing off one another. But then, perhaps it’s no surprise that the guy who made the phenomenal Where the Wild Things Are, perhaps the best movie about the trauma of emerging boyhood adolescence ever penned, could create a world full of characters who are so full in their dysfunctional growth and healthy desires regarding relationships. After all the drama and algorithms have played themselves out, we’re reminded of the evolution of healthy beings.


Jonze never uses the plot of a human dating a computer as a crutch, an opportunity to highlight the comedic possibilities or infinitesimal outcomes of relationship chess.
Instead, he treats the possibilities that the situation would present as any other choice autonomous creatures would choose- making a movie set in the near future timeless. Same goes for the movie’s sense of optimism. Spurred along by the decision to show as little blues as possible, there is a refreshing amount of optimism in the stirring art design of the film- and the film’s final shot. It really says something about the uniqueness, and quality of the film, that it could be done as well in any genre, setting, or circumstance- but usually won’t, because few are as assured and confident in their distinctive sense of person, or in their intimacy. It really gets that- and it’ll get you.

Rating:

5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Long Shot

2019’s Long Shot, directed by Jonathan Levine.

Starring Charlize Theron, Seth Rogan, June Diane Raphael, Ravi Patel, Bob Odenkirk, O'Shea Jackson Jr, Randall Park, Andy Serkis, Tristan D. Lalla, and Alexander Skarsgård.

What is it about?

Successful and ambitious Secretary of State Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), is informed by the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk) that he’ll endorse her to replace him as President. On the campaign trail, she runs into former childhood neighbour, Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Unemployed and as schlubby as it gets, Charlotte hires Fred to write speeches for her candidacy- leading to them experiencing long lost feelings for each other. With forces such as billionaire influencer Parker Wembley (Andy Serkis) wanting to compromise on her ideologies, and Fred’s rough edges not being copacetic to American voters, will the two of them be able to survive life as a couple in the public eye?

Why is it worth seeing?

I’m not sure there’s a better actor out there at portraying man-children suffering through arrested development than Seth Rogan- he’s the Humphrey Bogart of “adultescents”. Half Neverland and half High Times inspired, he makes the perfect foil to his romantic counterpart’s professional precision. This is the third time Rogan has worked with director Jonathan Levine (50/50 and The Night Before), so the two of them are perfectly in synch with portraying his intensely underwhelming young adult vibes.


Rogan’s object of affection, played by Charlize Theron, is as fluid and magnetic a performer as he is consistently sloppy. Cast as a regal political figure who learns how to put her hair down, Theron is more than up to the challenge. She is the film, commanding every scene she’s in- a delicious entrée manipulating the audience the same way her character works the room at political functions. It’s easy to empathize with her working through the relentlessly hypocritical fishbowl that she swims in, and marvel at how adroitly she navigates an environment of toxic masculinity masquerading as conservative world views. It’s that competence and ambition that make it so alluring to see behind the curtain, as she opens herself up to the possibility of something beyond career ambition. More please- it’s the stuff movie stars are made of.

Screenwriters Dan Sterling and Liz Hannah have to decide if they’re going to make a film that is more rom com than political thriller, or vice versa, and end up with mixed results. The challenge they run into is that the romance, between Rogan’s slob and Theron’s political matriarch, while predictable, isn’t quite believable- am I the only one who thinks it wouldn’t be much more than a very brief fling? The divide between the two of them, combined with their radically different day jobs (at times one is unemployed), is a difficult pill to swallow- but not as difficult as the one where we see a political sphere depicted where the House of Cards doesn’t start with the soul destroying compromises until it’s time to run for president. I’m afraid the Layer Cake runs high and far when it comes to the Oval Office. The rom com staple of having a supportive best friend (O'Shea Jackson, Jr, exploding with fake charm and unbelievable job circumstances) also does little to enhance the setting. Better is a almost unrecognizable Andy Serkis, both chomping at the bit and underplaying when compared to his other, more furrier and balder characters.

Levine has a number of films to his credit, but despite that, this is the most Jason Reitman-esque movie Reitman’s never made. From Theron’s prominent role, the oppressively white protagonists, the Indy background music, and the 90’s band reunion (Boyz 2 Men), it’s very indistinctive. However, Levine’s decision to show some scenes of bodily fluids take a film that has rom-com aspirations and grounds it into Porky’s and There’s Something About Mary territory- from the romantic to the scatological. It’s tough to think of a scenario where it makes the movie stronger. While the film is crass, it’s a line that is crossed and is the worse for it. Think it’s a strong scene? Imagine if it was powered by imagination.


With plenty of quibbles (and trademark awkward Rogan laughs) in between, it’s Theron’s animal magnetism that takes the film’s chances of being excellent, from non existent, to more of a long shot.

Rating:

3/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Toy Story 4

2019’s Toy Story 4, directed by Josh Cooley.

Starring Tom Hanks, Annie Potts, Christina Hendricks, Tony Hale, Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele, Tim Allen, Keanu Reeves, Madeleine McGraw, Jim Varney, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Joan Cusack, Jay Hernandez, and Lori Alan.

What is it about?

Toy Story 4 returns the gang of toys, lead by Sheriff Woody (Tom Hanks) and Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen). Lovingly entertaining kindergarden aged Bonnie, things get turned upside down when Bonnie’s family goes on an RV trip. Bonnie’s latest creation, Forky (Tony Hale), ends up kidnapped by a antique doll, Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks), who wants Woody’s parts to replace her own defective ones. While Woody enlists a (mostly) new group of ronin inspired toys to help his cause in rescuing Forky, Buzz Lightyear and the rest of the gang attempt to make sure Woody doesn’t get left behind by Bonnie’s family. Will the gang both be able to both find meaning in their existence, and not get left behind serving the ones they love?

Why is it worth seeing?

It’s hardly surprising that we find ourselves in a position where we have movie studios giving themselves licenses to print money. While missing the holy trifecta of animated sequels featuring superheroes, with two of those qualifiers checked off we have the fourth installment of Pixar’s first flagship franchise. The third Toy Story made just over a billion dollars, so I suppose the real question is… what took so long?


The good news is that Toy Story 4 is far better than it has any right to be (especially when compared to the rushed Toy Story 2). While it has plenty of return characters and arcs, it’s notable for it’s introductions of new characters, and more importantly, new arcs. The character of Woody, as always pluckily attempting to mobilize the gang of toys to stay together and best serve their owner, finds himself having to make decisions that hold consequences, forcing him to pick a side of the fence and not make everybody happy. His arc has him at times making decisions that are impulsive, short sighted, and even selfish- leaving plenty of opportunity for growth. There are plenty of new characters too, with the villain of Gabby Gabby proving herself relatable, Duke Caboom’s stuntmen ridiculousness and the Ducky/Bunny crazy duo humorous, and Forky’s existential crisis equal parts hilarious and profound. It’s a treat to focus on new characters rather than more of John Ratzenburger’s Cheers schtick a fourth time.


But the best introduction isn’t a character, but rather the return of a character and their evolution. In the previous films, Bo Peep (and her three headed sheep) made eyes at Woody, and was otherwise relegated to the background. Not so much here. With her impressive showing, it’s tough not to compare her to other cinematic female demigods of ass kickery, such as Imperator Furiosa or Ellen Ripley. No joke, Bo more than holds her own in a fight, does anything the dudes can do (and more), and makes decisions independently- even if they sting with heartburn. It’s really something, and for me, the highlight of the movie.

Of course there are other highlights too- the incredible animation, which at times could be mistaken for live action, the manic pace of one madcap mission after another, Toy Story’s underrated fascination with creations that make your skin crawl, and Pixar’s unbelievably reliable way of if not giving a tear duct workout, than at least a stretch. Anybody who has either been a parent, or a child, can relate to the series’ mastery in depicting a sense of child-like wonder and fears.


As the fourth entry in a franchise, inevitably there are signs of slippage suggesting that things cannot go to infinity and beyond. Randy Newman, always an acquired taste, really sounds like he’s hit the auto pilot switch (certainly there is no musical montage on par with Toy Story 2’s Sarah Mclachlan number). As alluded to above, some of the original cast’s schtick can wear thin- and the ADHD jibber jabber can wear out its welcome. And there may be too much of one of the movie’s settings for its own good. But TS4 is a funny and enjoyable romp for the family that re-entrenches Pixar as a reliable vehicle of entertainment.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.