Anya Taylor-Joy – People Talking

Quick Thoughts – October 2021 Round-Up: ‘Dune’ ‘The French Dispatch’ ‘Last Night in Soho’ ‘Antlers’

It’s been a long time since I talked about multiple contemporary movies at one time, but it feels good to be back to it; gives me a particular sense of normalcy that I haven’t felt in a while.

Honestly, I wasn’t even remotely interested in Denis Villeneuve’s Dune until I happened to see David Lynch’s Dune (which Lynch famously disowns) earlier this year (because God knows I’ll never read any of Frank Herbert’s novels, though I mean him no disrespect).

This makes it tough for me to both evaluate and recommend the Dune of 2021 (now confirmed as Part 1 of at least a duology, if not a trilogy).

I knew what was happening in the 2021 version because I knew what happened in 1984’s adaptation, but I’m not totally sure how an uninitiated general audience member would feel.

That said, one thing I can say with assurance is that Dune might just be Denis Villeneuve’s best-looking movie, which is really saying something after, you know, Blade Runner 2049, but it’s true.

Frankly, if all this movie is is a visual update on the 1984 adaptation with significantly more time to tell its story, that’s enough, especially in IMAX; however, as somebody who actually enjoys Lynch’s version, I wouldn’t call Villeneuve’s update leaps-and-bounds better, but it’s more than worthy.

I certainly haven’t heard many complaints from fans of the novels, for whatever that’s worth.

Rating: ★★★★☆

It’s Wes Anderson. What do you want?

Honestly, The French Dispatch might be his worst movie, but in the end I still liked it [just enough to revisit it again somewhere down the road].

Now, nothing about The French Dispatch is going to sway anyone who isn’t already a Wes Anderson fan. Compared to his last two live-action efforts in particular (Moonrise Kingdom and The Grand Budapest Hotel), it doesn’t even compare in charm and amusement, but his filmmaking style is still unique among his peers, which is worth seeing, and, as I would say of all his features, there is a heart to it, even if it’s noticeably slow to reveal itself this time.

If you do decide to see it, see it on the biggest screen you can, as centered as you can, because the aspect ratio and color change frequently, even if the camera itself is usually locked down.

As the saying goes, every frame is a painting, but some frames are more compelling than others.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)

This is going to sound strange, because they are VERY different movies, but I’d compare Edgar Wright’s Last Night in Soho to Guy Ritchie’s The Gentlemen, in that there are undeniable hallmarks of both directors’ styles in each film, but on the whole, they are far from the hypothetical versions of the movies that we would have gotten from them, say, fifteen years ago (in other words, they’re maturing).

Specifically to the style of Last Night in Soho though, I’d call it a cross between Wes Craven (e.g. Nightmare on Elm Street) and Dario Argento (e.g Suspiria).

However, I won’t say anything about the plot in particular (not that I usually do anyway), because one of my favorite things about the movie is how it just throws you in without explaining a whole lot.

In the end, it’s not my favorite from Edgar Wright, nor do I think it’s his best overall work (though it is a triumph in terms of the visual nitty-gritty: set design, costumes, etc.), but I appreciate his effort to evolve (and I think having a writing partner definitely helped this time), so I will both strongly recommend Last Night in Soho and be excited to see what he does next.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Antlers is being marketed with Guillermo Del Toro’s name (apparently he was a producer on it, as was multi-time Christopher Nolan collaborator, David S. Goyer), but I couldn’t care less.

I was always in on this movie for one name and one name only: Scott Cooper.

Not that he has a flawless filmography as a director (Black Mass in particular was more like Black Mess), but after Hostiles (one of the best Westerns of recent vintage) I was down for whatever came next, and, for the most part, I was not disappointed.

Based on the short story “The Quiet Boy” by Nick Antosca (who also worked on the screenplay), itself inspired by a particular piece of Native American folklore, Antlers feels like a slightly more contemporary version of a 1980s Stephen King adaptation (Silver Bullet, Christine, et al) with its small town, slow burn feel.

(I would also describe it as A24’s version of The Pit, but if that doesn’t sway you just forget I said it.)

My only real disappointment is, for one, the movie probably could have been trimmed down to a solid ninety minutes, but, more importantly, there’s some creature imagery that I wish would have been done 100% practically, or just straight up Hitchcockian (shadowed/obscured); the film still would have worked without the “money shots”.

Still, for where the horror genre is these days, Antlers is pretty solid.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)

Movie Review – ‘Emma.’ – Cozy On Up

Directed by Autumn de Wilde
Written by Eleanor Catton, based on the novel by Jane Austen
Cast: Anya Taylor-Joy, Johnny Flynn, Bill Nighy, Mia Goth, Miranda Hart, Josh O’Connor, Callum Turner, Rupert Graves, Gemma Whelan, Amber Anderson, Tanya Reynolds, Connor Swindells, Angus Imrie
Soundtrack: David Schweitzer & Isobel Waller-Bridge

I don’t know if I’d say that I feel “unqualified” to review Emma. After all, I’ve had my fair share of, perhaps, unexpected reviews, but this is my first experience with anything Jane Austen-related (whose work has been put to screen since the dawn of television), so I can make no comment on the fidelity of the adaptation.

All I know is that I was expecting an English period piece comedy, and that’s exactly what I got; and I rather enjoyed it, too.

Not to say that the film lacks dramatic stakes, but it’s the sort of thing that feels light and breezy in all the right ways without feeling just empty.

To put it another way, as someone who’s not necessarily in the target demographic for rom-coms, Emma. is the kind of romantic comedy-drama I can get behind, because: for one thing, it makes me laugh; it’s not dumb; and I can actually empathize with the characters. In fact, despite the exotic nature of the setting (in both time and place), it’s rather amazing how much of the story feels relatable to life in the 21st Century.

Of course, it always helps to have a good cast, which is the case here. I’ll admit, my main gateway into this film was my love of Bill Nighy, who totally delivers in every scene he’s in, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t give due credit to Anya Taylor-Joy and Johnny Flynn as the leads.

All-in-all, Emma. is a tremendous debut feature for director Autumn de Wilde and writer Eleanor Catton. It’s a good-looking, smartly-written, well-executed film. Perhaps not quite the cinematic triumph of Greta Gerwig’s Little Women (which, really, I only mention because I regret not writing a proper review; I loved it), but solidly worthy of a theatrical experience.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Triple Pack – The M. Night Shyamalanathon: ‘Unbreakable’ – ‘Split’ – ‘Glass’

Hated, adored, but rarely ignored, he is M. Night Shyamalan.

Having shot to super-stardom with his third feature, The Sixth Sense, in 1999 (which I must confess I still have never seen), Shyamalan’s career has been something of a roller coaster ride ever since, rising and falling yet never again reaching its initial peak by most measures (though some might quibble on this particular point).

Was it all his fault? Probably not. Studio marketing departments are notoriously awful when a movie doesn’t fit a conventional mold and they don’t know how to sell it. Heck, many of the movies at the top of “greatest of all-time” lists were box office flops and/or critically panned when first released, yet managed to find a major following later (e.g. The Shawshank Redemption), so I’m not going to sit here and call Shyamalan a hack fraud.

Nevertheless, by 2010, he’d pretty much bottomed out, to the point that people booed when they saw his name in the trailer for Devil (a film he neither directed nor wrote the screenplay for). Helming the 2013 Will and Jayden Smith vanity project After Earth did nothing to jump-start his public perception either, nor did 2015’s The Visit, but in early 2017 there were rumblings that he might finally be on the comeback trail when Split was a major hit in January (historically, the island of misfit movies) on a less than $10 million budget.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, for we begin in a simpler time, before terrorism, smartphones, and cinematic universes.

Original Release Date: November 22, 2000

Remember what I said about studios being terrible at marketing things they can’t easily put in a box (or simply put in the wrong box)?

Well, this is “Exhibit A” for Shyamalan’s career, because after his success with The Sixth Sense, Touchstone (aka Disney) wanted to market
Unbreakable as another “supernatural thriller”, which, you could argue the technical aspects of both of those terms and be correct, but let’s call it what it really is: an original comic book film.

And by that standard it’s a darn good one, nearly flawless in my opinion.

In fact, I remember seeing Unbreakable in the theaters as a kid and actually liking it, and it’s only gotten better with each re-watch.

First off, it’s got arguably the best performance of Bruce Willis’s career, and it doesn’t even rely on witty one-liners or sexual tension with his co-star (yes, that’s a Moonlighting reference). Of course, it helps to be paired across Samuel L. Jackson in a signature role, and Robin Wright brings a lot to the table in support.

That said, the star of this show is M. Night Shyamalan the comprehensive film-maker, as Unbreakable relies on many unbroken shots (some you might not even notice) and required sets built specifically for this purpose (something he sadly no longer can do because he now insists on lower budgets to maintain creative control, which I have mixed feelings about). It’s a slightly fictional world, to be sure, but it feels real enough, and he knows not to show too much (I particularly love how he visually handles the train crash and the aftermath), but rather just enough to service the story.

It’s “gritty and realistic” in all the best ways; it’s dramatic (The kitchen scene? Hello), yet, at times, tender; and it’s mature, yet not inaccessible.

I love it, and I wish more people would see it, because to me Unbreakable is nothing less than an underrated classic of a film.

Rating: ★★★★½ (out of five)

Ah yes, the film that got M. Night Shayamalan out of the red and into the black after fifteen years in movie purgatory.

If Unbreakable is a comic book movie by way of Alfred Hitchcock then Split is more akin to William Castle, in that both filmmakers strove for similar goals but Castle’s work tended to be more pulpy and exploitative.

Split is a fine film, not life-changing, but certainly entertaining, and I give it a lot of credit for having no jump scares (at least as far as I can remember) in a genre (and for a producer) that all too often relies on them in order to convince the teenagers that they are, in fact, scared.

I also very much enjoy the fact that within ten, maybe even within five minutes, you are in it, and the rest of the details come later as need be.

In contrast to Unbreakable, however, this is clearly the James McAvoy show. I’ll give him a bit more credit, but I’d say his performance is similar to Tom Hardy’s in Venom: neither good nor bad; it simply is, and you’re either on board or not. The key difference is that McAvoy literally has multiple personalities to slip in and out of, sometimes on a dime, which is impressive in its own right.

My one major knock on the movie is that the backstory of our protagonist (admirably played by Anya Taylor-Joy) feels exploitative (there’s that word again), not to mention lacking in its payoff relative to how much is set up; and there are moments that stretch logic and believability, even on the movie’s terms (but we’ll get much more into that with the next one).

That said, it’s a solid comeback effort for a film-maker that desperately needed a hit. Far from a classic, but nothing anybody needs to feel embarrassed about.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)

So, if you haven’t figured it out by now, Glass is a sequel to both Unbreakable and Split, which is less a “you got peanut butter in my chocolate” situation and more a “Domino’s Starburst Chocolate Lava Cake” type thing. Both good on their own, but do we really need them together? Seems like that’s going a little too far, and that’s really the overarching theme of the film: going too far in a few places, from story beats, to cameos, to deleted scenes from previous work (no joke).

This is not to say that it’s the worst movie ever. For one thing, they brought back as much of the original cast as they could, which is appreciated, and there’s plenty of stuff that’s interesting and entertaining on its own (especially once Samuel L. Jackson finally gets to play), but trying to combine these two worlds (and then the extra layer that comes with the third movie) just doesn’t work. As I said, Unbreakable, though it does have its supernatural elements, feels grounded and realistic, whereas Split is a bit of a different animal, and then Glass just goes off the rails (cue maniacal laughter).

As you might expect, given that it’s an M. Night Shyamalan film, there are a lot of spoilers I could get into, but I won’t, but I will say that not only are there scenes that “break the world,” but in the end the movie as a whole is just not a satisfying experience (perhaps this is because I’m more of an Unbreakable fan than a Spilt fan, maybe your experience will be different depending on who you care about more).

Last, but not least, there’s some truly awful dialogue in this movie, like Halloween-level awful, but at least it’s just in fits and starts and not an issue for the entire run time.

If you’re a completionist, Glass will be worth your time down the road, but if you’ve seen the other two you shouldn’t feel committed to having to see this one. Unfortunately, it’s just not that good. Much like Rogue One, if it was a fan film I wouldn’t judge it as harshly.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

Quick Thoughts – March Mega-Post – ‘Isle of Dogs’ ‘The Death of Stalin’ ‘Unsane’ ‘Red Sparrow’ ‘Thoroughbreds’

Isle of Dogs (2018)

Some people will probably call me crazy (in addition to “rich, white, and bored”) for giving this movie a perfect score, but, what can I say? I enjoyed it from end to end and will probably go see it again to pick out things I missed the first time (and maybe again after that).

I was a bit skeptical that Isle of Dogs would be worth the wait (the four years since The Grand Budapest Hotel is the longest gap between Wes Anderson features), but that notion was quickly put to bed. Every frame of the film is a rich feast for the eyes (which is logical given the time intensity of stop-motion animation), and every performance is a joy to listen to (regardless of your ability to understand all of them at all times).

It’s a simple enough story about a boy and his dog, and whatever influences it has are certainly worn on its sleeve, but somehow the movie still manages to feel original.

I’m on record as saying that I don’t get hyped up for the Oscars anymore, which is still true, but, I will say that if Isle of Dogs doesn’t win Best Animated Feature next year, it’ll be a travesty (although, if I’m being really honest, I’d like to see it as a Best Picture nominee, but then again I don’t really care about the Oscars).

It’s heartfelt, it’s funny, but, mostly, it’s pure movie magic if I’ve ever seen it.

Rating: ★★★★★

The Death of Stalin (2017)

As you might guess by its title, The Death of Stalin (based on the French graphic novel of the same name) is about…the death of Stalin, and the power struggle in the immediate aftermath. What you might not guess is that it’s not some hoity toity political drama, but rather every major player is portrayed to be petty and foolish, if not downright stupid.

This is all thanks to writer/director Armando Iannucci (don’t be fooled by the name, kids; he’s Scottish, like Peter Capaldi), whose work I’m vaguely familiar with. I’ve seen In the Loop and an episode or two of Veep, so I know his political-satire-as-dark-comedy style. You might not think it would work for Soviet Russia, but I thought it was fantastic.

One of the greater purposes of humor is that it allows us to process the unpalatable in a way that leaves us with our sanity intact, which is precisely what this film does. It uses satire and farcical comedy to demonstrate the extreme absurdity of the totalitarian regime of Stalin and his cohorts. Certain critics have found this clash to be in poor taste, or simply unfunny, but I think this film makes its point rather eloquently, and the performances from Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale in particular help bolster it even more so.

Honestly, the only element I’m really taking points off for is some digital night shooting that took me out of the movie, and a few bits of humor didn’t quite work for me (that’ll happen in a comedy), but other than that, it’s hard to ask for more than what The Death of Stalin delivered.

Rating: ★★★★½

Unsane (2018)

Right off the bat, I’ll say this is a great example of a 21st Century Hitchcockian Thriller.

The story is horrifyingly plausible (credit to screenwriters Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer), the performances are believable (kudos to Claire Foy and Jay Pharaoh), and the movie fills you with an utter sense of dread that would make Brian De Palma proud.

There’s really just one problem. The film was shot on an iPhone.

I don’t know if this was done purely as an experiment, or strictly to keep production costs down, or what, but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear to be a thematic choice.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like the whole movie is ruined because of this, I just think it would be to the movie’s benefit to look (and sound) like a movie, and there are moments when you are painfully aware that this was done on a phone and not something more substantial.

It’s a fine film, I’ll be happy to watch it again in the future, but it’s difficult for me to say it’s a must-see on the big screen, and I wish that wasn’t the case.

Rating: ★★★½

Red Sparrow (2018)

There’s a fairly popular notion regarding espionage these days that we don’t even need spies anymore because everything can be done by computer, and the response to this in media has largely been to equip fictional spies (both regular and super) with more and more technology, regardless of how cartoonish it seems.

The major reason why I enjoyed Red Sparrow so much is that it completely ignores this erroneous line of thinking, and brings spycraft back to the same old game it’s always been: psychology.

In short, Red Sparrow feels like a throwback in the best way, without feeling obsolete (definitely le Carré-esque, if you were wondering). Apparently some people have found some of the more “adult” elements to be rather shocking (which is kind of shocking to me because I didn’t think people were shocked by anything anymore, at least when it comes to movies), but I didn’t feel that it was exploitative relative to the story being told.

This film is a slow burner with some action, but no action for action’s sake, which may not be enough for some people, but I appreciated how grounded it was.

Not for everyone, but it’s not the trash you may have heard it is.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Thoroughbreds (2017)

Of all the movies in this post, this was probably the one I was the most let down by, and that’s not even saying it’s bad.

Thoroughbreds is a fine film on every level, but it’s tough for me to say there’s anything particularly special about it (which is kind of sad given that it’s Anton Yelchin’s final film performance, but what are you going to do?).

Of the two leads, I give the edge to Olivia Cooke in terms of her performance, and the story at least feels somewhat original, but in the end I’m left feeling like the movie is in the shallows rather than the deep end where it should be.

Worth seeing once, but far from a must-see.

Rating: ★★★☆☆