Ciarán Hinds – People Talking

Twofer Movie Review – ‘Belfast’ and ‘Ghostbusters: Afterlife’ – The Joys of Youth

A weird pair? Sure.

Do I care? No.

Let’s get to it.

Written and Directed by Kenneth Branagh
Cast: Jude Hill, Caitríona Balfe, Jamie Dornan, Judi Dench, Ciarán Hinds, Colin Morgan, Lara McDonnell, Gerard Horan, Conor MacNeill, Turlough Convery, Gerard McCarthy, Lewis McAskie, Olive Tennant, Victor Alli, Josie Walker
Soundtrack: Van Morrison

With respect to a bunch of movies that had their releases delayed by the pandemic, I’m not sure I’ve been as excited for a new film in the past couple of years now as I’ve been for Kenneth Branagh’s Belfast.

Now, admittedly, I generally see British Isles accents as a feature and not a bug, so I felt totally comfortable diving into Belfast in a theater, rather than the comfort of home where I can turn on subtitles, but the movie is so much more than that.

Kenneth Branagh’s semi-autobiographical tale of young life in Belfast at the start of “The Troubles” is, in terms of pure cinema, maybe the best thing he’s ever directed, which is something given his resume. The black and white palate (with color occasionally mixed in for effect) helps to put the story in its time, but the cinematography itself frequently evokes the perspective of a child, which is one of the major points of the whole piece.

If I have any criticism at all, it’s that, there is one, maybe two scenes that feel a bit out of place with the rest of the film, but the performances are all on point, it looks beautiful, it feels beautiful, and, while it does touch on some darker subject matter (such is life), it still manages to be a joyful film throughout. I doubt anyone will ever classify Belfast as a “Christmas Movie”, but it gets honorary status in my book.

It deserves every award bestowed.

Rating: ★★★★½ (out of five)

Directed by Jason Reitman
Written by Gil Kenan & Jason Reitman
Cast: Mckenna Grace, Finn Wolfhard, Carrie Coon, Paul Rudd, Logan Kim, Celeste O’Connor, Oliver Cooper, Bokeem Woodbine, Marlon Kazadi, Sydney Mae Diaz, Tracy Letts
Soundtrack: Rob Simonsen

Speaking of movies pushed back by the pandemic though, I was admittedly more cautious heading into Ghostbusters: Afterlife, being a huge fan of the first and even second movie in the series.

I’ve said this before in relation to Star Wars: I do my best to be concerned with the quality of the movies in beloved franchises first, before examining fan stuff like “canon” (Rogue One didn’t pass muster).

By that standard, Afterlife may be the best of the recent “nostalgia films”, in no small part because somebody not only bothered to write a solid screenplay first, but then had the directorial vision to follow through on it, rather than letting the cast take over the movie with incessant improvisation (not that I’m talking about any project in particular).

Is there “fan service” in Afterlife? Yes.

Is it at an unforgivable level? I’d say no.

Honestly, the most refreshing aspect of the movie to me is its simplicity, both in the overall story and in the “action” set pieces. There aren’t 500 CGI shots that come from an impossible camera angle that instantly take me out of the movie; it’s mostly down to earth stuff that conveys a real sense of risk and danger.

Now, does it “match the tone” of the 1984 film?

For the most part, I’d say yes.

The beauty of the original is that, while it is a comedy film that makes us laugh, the world of the movie is treated 100% real, which allows you to make a sequel film decades later that is a slightly different animal; but, on a binary, the dry humor is still there in Afterlife.

Kudos to Jason Reitman, who was resistant to the idea of making “Ghostbusters 3” for a long time, but ultimately may have been the perfect person to do it.

And, I have to say, as much as the marketing team may have been playing up the Stranger Things comparisons, I would not make that comparison at all. Believe it or not, you can have multiple properties with kids in them that are not the same.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Movie Review – ‘First Man’ – “Bang, zoom!”

Directed by Damien Chazelle
Written by Josh Singer, based on the book by James R. Hansen
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Claire Foy, Corey Stoll, Pablo Schreiber, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Christopher Abbott, Patrick Fugit, Lukas Haas, Shea Whigham, Brian d’Arcy James, Cory Michael Smith, J. D. Evermore, John David Whalen, Ethan Embry, Skyler Bible, Ben Owen, Olivia Hamilton, Kris Swanberg, Ciarán Hinds, Shawn Eric Jones, William Gregory Lee, Steven Coulter
Soundtrack: Justin Hurwitz

To borrow a phrase from our friends in the District, I get “butt cised” for movies about manned spaceflight (and Pablo Schreiber).

Whether it’s The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, Interstellar, The Martian, heck, give me Moonraker, I’m on board,

Which is why it’s so painful for me to say First Man is a real mixed bag.

Overall, I give it a lukewarm recommendation based largely on the technical achievements (especially given a budget significantly under $100 million), in particular there’s some top-notch miniature work and some wonderful production design, but I absolutely hated the way much of the movie is shot (the camera is often way too close, and there are long stretches, especially in the Mission Control scenes, that are shot like an episode of The Office, and it’s awful), the story and what is and isn’t selected to be told feels very hodgepodge, there are a lot of characters to keep track of with zero help, and, in the end, I’m just not entirely sure what the goal of the movie was.

If the point was to demonstrate how insane it was to try to go the Moon with 1960s technology, mission accomplished, because that definitely comes across (and there’s another personal thread that gets paid off). Beyond that though, First Man feels more like a bigger-budgeted mumblecore movie that happens to be about Neil Armstrong than anything else.

I mean, I get it, it’s hard to do movies based on real-life people and events, but even at the end of this film there’s a disclaimer that things have been generalized, so, just go out and make a movie; it’s okay if it feels like a movie. I guess there was some thought of not doing things in typical Hollywood fashion, but it was hard not to think about this film in the hands of someone else to illicit more of an emotional response.

So, yeah, worth seeing once, I guess; maybe it’s worth doing in IMAX for the visuals, but I don’t think I’ll ever watch it again.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

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: ★★★☆☆

Movie Review – ‘Justice League’ – Avert Your Eyes

Directed by Zack Snyder
Written by Chris Terrio (story and screenplay), Joss Whedon (screenplay), and Zack Snyder (story)
Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa, Ray Fisher, Jeremy Irons, Diane Lane, Connie Nielsen, J.K. Simmons, Ciarán Hinds (voice), Amber Heard, Joe Morton, Lisa Loven Kongsli, Kobna Holdbrook-Smith, Doutzen Kroes, Brooke Ence, Ann Ogbomo, Samantha Jo, Holt McCallany, Marc McClure
Soundtrack: Danny Elfman

Alternate title for this piece (or the movie): Why Can’t We Be [Super]friends?

I really shouldn’t even dignify this movie with anything resembling a full-length review, so I’ll try not to.

At no point in time did I ever have high hopes for this film, and in its wake I definitely don’t have high hopes for the DCEU as a whole.

Justice League is as big of a mess as Rogue One (if not more so). The only difference for me personally is that I don’t have nearly as much emotional attachment to the property, so I’m not nearly as angry or disappointed, but I still have to call a turd a turd.

The biggest problem with Justice League is that it is approximately 4,657 movies in one (hyperbole intended).

It’s almost as if these characters should have starred in their own films before appearing all together.

You know? Maybe build it up a little bit?

Why DC didn’t bite the bullet on this and instead attempted to microwave everything in order to “catch up” to Marvel is entirely beyond me. I mean, despite being pilloried by the critics at nearly every turn, these movies are still somehow doing good business, couldn’t they have put in the effort to make them good, too?

Back to the subject at hand (though this is a franchise-wide issue), Justice League, in addition to having a myriad of elements (especially tones) that don’t quite fit together, has so many visuals that are just plain ugly to look at that I could hardly believe my eyes. I may not be a film-making expert, but I do know that this was a two-hour movie that cost $300 million. It should not look as bad as it does, and yet it does.

Now, I’ll admit, there were a few tiny bits and pieces here and there that I did find enjoyable about Justice League, but mostly I was either bored, or trying not to be sick. Even if you’re somehow a DCEU completionist, this movie still isn’t worth your money to see theatrically.

It’s a mess. An ugly, boring mess.

What more do I need to say?

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

P.S.
There are multiple stingers, because D.C. is now in full Marvel mode (they wish).

P.P.S.
Naturally, and as usual, thanks to Alamo Drafthouse for the cool glassware (which is better than the movie).