Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood

2019’s Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood, written and directed by Quentin Taratino.

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Al Pacino, Timothy Olyphant, Kurt Russell, Luke Perry, Bruce Dern, Clifton Collins Jr, and not Tim Roth.

What is it about?

Set in 1969 Los Angeles, fading television star Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is struggling to adjust to his flatlining Hollywood career. With his stunt double and friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) in tow, the two of them have to adjust to the changing landscape of the political culture of the time as they grapple with aging. Further complicating matters is Rick’s neighbour, a pregnant Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie), is targeted by members of Charles Manson’s cult. Will Rick and Cliff become footnotes in an historical tragedy, or finish like a fairy tale?

Why is it worth seeing?

Quentin Tarantino (QT) has never been accused of being subtle. His films are typically shocking, in your face, adrenaline infused, and always a pastiche of his bizarro but cult informed movie taste. Once Upon… features scenes of all of those qualities, in a loving homage to the end of the flower power decade, but it also features something not as often witnessed in QT’s oeuvre- surprises, conducted through a type of patient craftsmanship.

I still remember the first time I saw Pulp Fiction- its loving tribute to loser hitmen, gangster fixers, and juking palookas featured spectacular left turns that I didn’t see coming. Nobody did. It just wasn’t the status quo for mainstream art house pictures to feature both washed and legit movie stars interacting with leather clad gimps participating in torture below pawnshops. But after that, (and eight other films that have started to feel similar), you began to expect a certain kind of perverted rhythm, ending in something like a Mexican stand-off where a lot of people (or everybody) don’t walk away from the carnage. Maybe throw in a pop song in the background for good measure. All this was done in the service of setting up genre pieces grounded by QT’s love of exploitation films and schlock- a gangster film here, a ninja revenge western there. But more recent period QT has began to mine history for the settings of his stories, and here, his take on the Manson’s Cult murders of California, and what would happen to the key players, fooled me yet again. It’s conclusion goes to a similar place for the always provocative auteur, but the choices in how to get there are so unprecedented. There’s nothing like a master who is at the top of his craft pleasantly surprising his audience.


It sounds simple, but the reason The Hateful Eight didn’t work as a suspense thriller as well as it could have, was because of QT’s decision to not chronicle the events taking place at the haberdashery in a linear fashion (perhaps he was trying to copy Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Kill Bill Pt.1’s disjointed narratives). Once Upon… doesn’t make that mistake, and one is reminded of Titanic (and not because it also featured Leo) in that the audience knows what’s coming, dreads it, and tries to pray for a way for history not to play itself out. QT’s films are too long and indulgent (no exception here), but the initially nagging (followed by urgent foreboding) sense of upending tragedy, fueled by periodic calendar and clock updates, funnels the film to its surprising and furious conclusion.


QT relishes few things more than movie stars. His film catalogue is a cinephile’s dream list of both stars (and cult figures) of yesteryear, and this year, and Once Upon drills even deeper into his love of Hollywood. Penetrating deep into a world of film sets, slick agents, stuntmen culture, and a meta structure where a film shoot is almost imperceptible from the real world, it’s almost surprising it took QT this long to make a film set entirely in Tinseltown (like the fever dream of True Romance fans). In Leonardo DiCaprio’s fading star, who is given a wake up call regarding his career aspects, he has to deal with a sense of unmet expectations and disappointment that mirror the 1970’s eventual death of hippie culture (and burgeoning of eventual 80’s yuppies). Besides booze, the only constant in his life is Brad Pitt’s character, the ex stunt man who really just handles his friend’s life with no complaints. With all due respect to Leo, it’s Pitt who steals the show as the mysteriously gorgeous handler, with an unknown past full of murderous questions, and whom is as capable at handling any situation (no matter how under the influence or how bizarre), as he is at nonchalantly drifting through life. It’s as if his Ocean’s 11 character got really good at kung fu and started wearing moccasins. But they’re the entrees in a succulent feast of actors, and it’s delight trying to keep up with the amount of people who stroll through the movie.

Good times described, for the quibbles it’s tough to not have a nagging feeling that QT just doesn’t care for women and how they’re at times portrayed in his films. While he clearly has a fetish for feet, I’m not sure he feels the same way for the humans attached to them. While his script shows love in Margot Robbie’s portrayal of Sharon Tate’s fateful character, it certainly doesn’t for anyone else of the female persuasion. But at the risk of sounding like he’s off the hook- that’s just not QT’s bag. You can hear him cackling maniacally behind the screen as he sets fire to our expectations. In fact, Once Upon also features zero utterances of racial epithets, although that may be more reflective of the setting and the lack of opportunity for minorities, than an actual wake up call to our raconteur. And don’t ask QT how he seems to feel for hippies- the film’s final scene will provide a litmus test towards your funny bone’s tolerance for pain and suffering to those who had long hair and promoted love and understanding. Just let it be known that Once Upon’s sense of sentiment and irony understands that the death of hippies preceded society starting to look like the very thing it claimed to hate so much.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

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.

Us

2019’s Us, written and directed by Jordan Peele.

Starring Lupita Nyong'o, Winston Duke, Elisabeth Moss, Tim Heidecker, Shahadi Wright Joseph, Evan Alex, and Napiera Groves.

What is it about?

A nuclear family (Lupita Nyong'o, Winston Duke, Shahadi Wright Joseph, and Evan Alex) go to their cabin to have a vacation, but are interrupted by doppelgangers who want to forcefully take their place. With the country having similar issues widespread, will the family (and nation) make it through the night?

Why is it worth seeing?

In a culture currently dominated by superheroes, sequels/prequels, and cartoons, Jordan Peel’s original IP is a breath of fresh air. After 2017’s wicked thriller satire Get Out, Us sees Peel again creating something both original, and firmly enhanced by what came before. At times reminiscent of The Great Outdoors (check out Winston Duke’s John Candy sized tribute to dad jokes), before sharply pivoting to odes to The Strangers and Funny Games, Peele makes the proceeding all his own, with little flavours of 80’s nostalgia sprinkled throughout.


Similar to Get Out, lurking behind the cat and mouse doppelganger hunter action, Peele’s script has something more meaningful to it than just mere horrifying kicks. It’s metaphor may not work as sharply, or as precisely, as his previous work’s thoughts on entrenched racism and humans willing to break the rules of nature to propagate one’s self interests, but its thoughts on finding oneself, identity, and clones stimulate some neurons upstairs as the action unfolds. Fantastic work by the actors (particularly Lupita Nyong'o)- all playing doubles of themselves, and the rocking soundtrack doesn’t hurt either, which is either cool as the breeze or hilariously ironic.


Peele’s confident camera moves and in house creative tendencies reminds me of another auteur, M Night Shymalen- if M was half as good. Seriously, if Peele can continue to stay true to himself, not let studios meddle to produce works as timelessly hopeless as Avatar: The Last Airbender, and embrace the spirit that made him so successful as a sketch comedian, he will go far in his work. His resume speaks for itself so far.

Rating:

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Destination Wedding

2018’s Destination Wedding, written and directed by Victor Levin.

Starring Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, and a mountain lion.

What is it about?

Frank (Keanu Reeves) and Lindsay (Winona Ryder) are invited to Frank’s family’s wedding. Unhappy but stuck together for the weekend, they find that their lack of social skills and borderline agoraphobia to be fetching. As the bride and groom celebrate their weekend, Frank and Lindsay celebrate a reunion of chemistry not seen since Bram Stroker’s Dracula.

Why is it worth seeing?

It should be noted that Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves haven’t shared the screen together since 1992’s Dracula. I point that out, if only because the two thespians really spend a lot of the movie together- virtually all of it, in fact. People who have skimmed the summaries of Richard Linklater’s sublime Before trilogy could compare the fated by potent chemistry couple of Jessie and Celine to Wedding’s characters, but unfortunately what is missing (besides the quality of dialogue, chemistry, and authentic settings) is the idea that the planet has other people on it worth speaking to. Reeves and Ryder’s characters are so hopelessly solipsistic, so helplessly narcissistic in their introversion, that there is almost no scenes, where either of them (or together) are they seen actually having a conversation with somebody else. It’s a decision that is decidedly odd for the wedding setting, and even more so as a potential maybe-kinda-sorta rom-com, to have so much in common, narratively speaking and not qualitatively, with My Dinner with Andre.


With literally no ancillary characters, the focus goes squarely on to the two players and their micro worlds of pity filled angst. For a project that is essentially a dialogue, the protagonists aren’t that likable. Fueled by machine gun dialogue that goes back and forth in a game of insults and then insight-lacking vulnerability, it’s too clever by half, for two characters who are too clever to not be insufferable. Eventually the jibber jabber starts to drone on, as William Ross’ music plunks on and on. Given its lack of energy, it’s both a wonder that the film is as long as it is (and feels longer), and revealing how short is actually is at 85 minutes. All of this is supplemented by the worst offender of this passionless romance- predictability. Everybody (or rather, two people) say no, while we know yes. Everybody should have just RSVP’d no and stayed home.

Rating:

2.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

A Separation

2011’s A Separation, written and directed by Asghar Farhadi.

Starring Peyman Moaadi, Leila Hatami, Sarina Farhadi, Sareh Bayat, Shahab Hosseini, Ali-Asghar Shahbazi, Shirin Yazdanbakhsh, Merila Zarei, and Babak Karimi.

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (Asghar Farhadi) and Best Foreign Film.
Winner of an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film.

What is it about?

Based in Iran, mother and wife Simin (Leila Hatami), wishes to divorce her husband, Nadir (Peyman Moaadi). Disagreeing with their nation’s patriarchal and religious views, she wants to leave the country and take their daughter, Termeh (Sarina Farhadi). Focused on taking care of his Alzheimer’s afflicted father, Nadir refuses to leave, so he and Termeh hire distant friend and devoutly religious, Razieh (Sareh Bayat), to look after him. Razieh’s husband, Hojjat (Shahab Hosseini ), beset with debt obligations and devoutly religious, is not to know that Razieh has a job caring for a man, and the separation process becomes very complicated for Simin and Nadir. Because of their country’s legal laws and religious norms, a series of misunderstandings, tragedies, and lies threaten to further tear the family apart.

Why is it worth seeing?

Due to censorship efforts by its government, Iran can be a puzzle when it comes to cinematically depicting everyday life for its citizens. Director Asghar Farhadi was victim to his government’s efforts when his film was briefly banned, allegedly for Farhadi’s support of other lightning rod Iranian film makers. All of this is to say that A Separation is a blessing in that it actually came to be.


A loose Iranian version of Kramer vs. Kramer, if there is a film that better depicts (more or less) middle class life (and class struggles) in contemporary Iran, I don’t know of it. Writer/Producer/Director Asghar Farhadi’s camera goes straight into an apartment (and many bureaucratic offices) teeming with life, and the decision to keep scenes handheld gives a vague sensation of sensory overload, a feeling that one can never quite settle amidst life’s never ending changes.


Relationships, and all the inherent messiness that comes from coupling, are complicated (and that’s before children are added to the equation). But how does one reconcile that when those dynamics are contrasted with the cultural and religious views of a nation, and with its laws? As the film’s characters grapple with that- with intent, respect, disrespect, anger, calm, and bewilderment- it becomes clear that the movie’s title is not just about a family breaking apart, but indeed a nation’s views and institutions being separate from those of its citizens.


Farhadi’s script, rightly celebrated, has just the right amount of conversation to ping pong back and forth. At times, the film is quietly reverent of its characters’ motives and domesticity, and in others it resembles a ferocious debate in which the moderator has lost all control. It’s a fascinating view of a culture in which overworked judges decide things such as murder and divorce- but with no lawyers to represent the parties. The end results are as fiery and desperate as you would expect, given the consequences if implicated. While Ferhadi’s story is intensely focused on the results of the proceedings, in the background it asks what our children think of us when they learn that we don’t always keep our word- and the realization that we are no longer gods to them.


No matter the skills involved in the filmmaking (and they’re considerable), what’s irrevocable is the fact that in divorce, the child usually loses. Here, it’s incredible, the pressure that is put on the adolescent character- torn between choosing a feuding parent’s side, helping support her family, focusing on her studies, and just being a teenager. You’d think any culture touting the values of family, togetherness, and honesty would have less cognitive dissonance.


Not always fun, but always interesting and sometimes fiery, A Separation has a lot to unpack in its run time, and its closing shot confirms that the chasms that separate people formerly connected can be both wide and blurry. Its only flaw is that it leaves its female protagonist largely in the shadows- but that only authenticates her motivations for wanting to leave in the first place.

Rating:

4.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Certified Copy

2010’s Certified Copy, written and directed by Abbas Kiarostami.

Starring Juliette Binoche, William Shimell, Adrian Moore, Gianna Giachetti, Jean-Claude Carrière, and Agathe Natanson.

What is it about?

Set in present day Italy, antique collector (Juliette Binoche) arranges to spend the day with author, James Miller (William Shimell). The two of them pontificate about their thoughts on the difference between originals and copies in both art and life, but something is off. Through espresso, weathered streets, and historical art, the nature of their relationship comes into question as they reveal themselves for what they really are.

Why is it worth seeing?

Departed Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami once said that one can never get close to the truth except through lying. Here, his tale of two people exploring a constantly morphing relationship, invites viewers to multiple interpretations. Awash in the classical splendour of Italy’s Tuscany, it is never clear on which terra firma the couple resides.

Through a prism of conversation around topics such as the difference between authenticity and fakery, Kiarostami’s script about Binoche’s French/Italian passionate art curator and Shimell’s English distanced author intellectual produce insights that reveal themselves gradually, changing our perceptions of everything that came before. The result is a film that is as interested in mystery, as it is the irregular beats of those from Venus and Mars.


Like a lot of great works, Copy’s movie trailer and marketing don’t do it justice. To see it hyped is to speak to some sort of  Hollywood meet cute elevator pitch in which a pair of strangers decide to pretend to be a couple, to presumably fantastic results resulting in wedding bells and bliss. Instead, it produces something much more beguiling- interested in what happens when people investigate both their pairing, and themselves. Packed with reflective surfaces, mirrors, and isolated shots of actors speaking to one another, Kiarostami plainly reveals how muddled the difference between reality and fantasy can be.


As the principals in 95% of the film, Shimell and Binoche both give performances of depth, their respective backgrounds informing who they are without stereotypically defining. In particular, Binoche is spectacular, alternating between English, French, and Italian like a Formula One driver switches gears, with an engine to match. The decision to award her Best Actress at Cannes that year has aged well.

Unique and intoxicating, elegiac and at times tragic, like its male protagonist, Certified Copy can at times tip into the overly intellectual, but its mystery, themes, and mastery of craft, are no forgery- they’re the genuine article.

Rating:

5/5

Trailer: Click Here.