James Newton Howard – People Talking

Batman Triple Pack: Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy (in IMAX)

Seeing as how it’s nearly impossible to talk about Avengers: Endgame without spoiling anything (though I do give it a hearty recommendation if you’re the least bit interested), it seems as good an opportunity as any to talk about three films that I imagine the statute of limitations for spoilers has expired on, at least for anyone who’s old enough to drink.

I’ll speak only for myself here, but I see Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight triptych as the defining movie trilogy of my generation. Part of that is personal taste, part of that is timing (Batman Begins came out as I was graduating high school, Dark Knight heading into my senior year of college, and Dark Knight Rises a couple years into my first 9-to-5 job), but mostly it comes down to cultural impact.

For better or worse (mostly worse, to be honest, but I don’t hold other people’s incompetent stylistic plagiarism against Nolan), these films’ version of Batman and his universe is likely the genesis and certainly the embodiment of what I refer to as Post-9/11 Realism. You can see it in other franchises (or attempted franchises): James Bond; Jaffa/Silver’s Planet of the Apes; new American Godzilla; the DCEU; FANT4STIC; and so on. Even Mission: Impossible, as outright fun as those movies have been in the new millennium, there’s definitely a tinge of seriousness that feels Dark Knight-esque.

But, hey. We’re here to talk about some Batman movies, so let’s talk about some Batman movies.

Weirdly enough, I don’t remember a lot of hype for Batman Begins at the time of its release. It was almost as if it snuck up on us with great stealth (as a ninja should).

Oh, sure, I’d been following the rumor mill for years (more on that later), but deep down I think we almost didn’t believe that it was actually happening, probably because back in my day people didn’t reboot franchises every three years like certain hack studios do today, so despite the fact that eight whole years had passed, the debacle of Batman & Robin was still fresh in our minds.

And, wow; what a sea change.

To go from the candy-coated Gothic neon of the Burton and Schumacher films to the down-and-dirty grittiness of Batman Begins was nothing short of mind-blowing (to their credit, the filmmakers of Casino Royale were able to recapture this feeling a year later, and to greater profit). I think I went out and saw it three times in theaters (which would become something of a tradition with this trilogy, though not unmerited). What’s interesting now though, looking back, is that while I wouldn’t necessarily call it more fantastical, it’s certainly more dreamlike (some might say more “comic book”) than its sequels.

Still, despite the fact that it was a top ten hit both domestically and worldwide, it seems as if a number of people still sleep on this one today, but for fans of the Batman, it was the shot in the arm we desperately needed, and still very much appreciate.

Rating: ★★★★★

If I may jump back for a second to about 2001, I remember when the big rumor about the yet-unproduced Batman reboot was that it would be Batman: Year One (which later turned out to be a quality DC animated feature), to be directed by Darren Aronofsky, and starring as Batman, wait for it, none other than Aaron Eckhart.

Obviously, none of that ever materialized (and may only have ever existed as rumor in the first place), but flashing forward in time, while everybody was freaking out about Heath Ledger being cast as The Joker, I was just happy that Eckhart finally got some sort of consolation prize.

But enough about rumors, as fun as they may be.

I was so excited to see the sequel to Batman Begins that I rounded up a crew to go see, of all movies, I Am Legend, opening night, in IMAX, because I’d learned there’d be a special preview of The Dark Knight. Little did we know we’d be treated to the entire bank heist scene, which, believe me when I tell you this, when that opening shot of the city in broad daylight hit the screen, I thought I was going to fall out of my seat. It was an indelible moment that I still think about today. We’d all grown up going to IMAX films at museums and such, and I’d seen a few movies blown up for the larger screen, but to see a feature film actually shot in the format itself was, again, mind-blowing.

Honestly, by the time I got around to seeing the full movie (again, opening night, in IMAX), my expectations were so ridiculously high that I probably should have been disappointed in some way, but I wasn’t. In fact, at the time, I’d say my expectations were exceeded. Pretty close to miraculous if you ask me.

And I know I wasn’t alone on that.

Rating: ★★★★½

My memories of this one aren’t as clear as they are for its predecessor, but it was a similar overall experience (though I do remember one of my workmates at the time living in Newark and waking up one morning to the sight of Gotham City Police vehicles parked outside his front door). My friend and I went to see Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol opening night in IMAX to see the special preview, which again was the amazing opening scene of the movie (and featuring a different audio mix for Bane than the final version of the film).

Suffice it to say though, I think we were all a little less hyped for this one in the wake of Heath Ledger’s untimely death. There’d been rumors that the reason for Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s casting was to replace him as The Joker (which, in retrospect, I think could have worked, especially if his screen time was limited), but ultimately The Dark Knight Rises proceeded forth on its own terms, forging a new and different direction while ambitiously merging the previously unrelated stories of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight to an all-out conclusion.

I remember many people being highly critical of this one at the time, but I’ve always enjoyed it. It may stretch the bounds of realism in a more pronounced way than the two films before it, but all-in-all it draws out a fitting end to the character of Batman according to Nolan’s vision.

As they say, go big or go home.

Rating: ★★★★☆

So, what did I actually learn from seeing all three of these films in IMAX in one day (to celebrate Batman’s 80th Birthday)?

Well, I learned that while each movie is decidedly worth the price of admission on its own (which I already knew, but still), when you line all three of them up in such a direct comparison, it becomes obvious that Batman Begins is the best of the bunch (despite having no actual IMAX footage), which I honestly did not believe up until a few weeks ago when this event happened. The thing about Begins is that the layering of the story and the pacing is just so good, and as big and as grand as its sequels are, they just as obviously have third act pacing issues, which isn’t the worst thing, but it’s noticeable, and forces me to nick some points off.

Another thing I learned is that despite the great performance from Health Ledger (and it is Great), and despite The Dark Knight’s snub being the reason for The Academy opening up the Best Picture Oscar to more than five films per year, the gulf in quality between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises is not nearly as wide as the consensus would have you believe. In fact, at this point, if you said you liked the latter better than the former, I wouldn’t hold it against you.

Mostly though, I got a great refresher in knowing that these movies would not be what they are without Christopher Nolan. His passion for shooting on real film, for doing effects in camera as much as humanly possible, his knack for great (and I mean truly seamless) miniature work, his blissful ignorance that allows him to cast roles based on merit rather than reputation, all of these things flow out of who he is, what he cares about, and his artistic vision. He’s a great storyteller, to be sure, but the way you tell stories has an impact on the stories you tell, and I couldn’t be happier that this trilogy came from his heart, mind, body, and soul.

At least in the world of live-action, this version of Batman may never be topped. I’m not saying it’s completely flawless, but I’ll tell you this, I don’t think anyone will ever put such care into it ever again. In this world of digital 4-D cleanliness, having these gritty, tactile, analog films is like a warm blanket I wouldn’t trade for anything.

God save the king.

P.S.
I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned it here before, but if you’ve never seen Disney’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, you should definitely check it out. There are some amazing parallels between James Mason’s version of Captain Nemo and Liam Neeson’s character in Batman Begins.

P.P.S.
We all got Batarangs.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Brendan in Jersey (@brendaninjersey) on Apr 13, 2019 at 8:07pm PDT

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: ★★★☆☆

Thanksgiving Smörgåsbord: ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri’ – ‘Roman J. Israel, Esq.’ – ‘Last Flag Flying’ – ‘Lady Bird’

Four auteured films.

No superheroes.
No space battles.
No remakes.

Let’s get it on.

Written and Directed by Martin McDonagh
Cast: Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell, John Hawkes, Peter Dinklage, Caleb Landry Jones, Kerry Condon, Darrell Britt-Gibson, Abbie Cornish, Lucas Hedges, Zeljko Ivanek, Amanda Warren, Malaya Rivera Drew, Sandy Martin, Christopher Berry, Jerry Winsett, Kathryn Newton, Samara Weaving, Clarke Peters, Nick Searcy
Soundtrack: Carter Burwell

Whether it was ever his intention or not, it’s completely fair to refer to Martin McDonagh as the British Isles’ answer to the Coen Brothers.

I mean, all three of his films (In Bruges, Seven Psycopaths, and now Three Billboards) have been crime-related dark comedies, all scored by Carter Burwell, and now he’s finally recruited Frances McDormand as his leading lady.

Not that I’m at all complaining, or throwing shade, or saying he’s ripping anyone off. He’s not. His stories are original, his characters are unique, and his films ultimately stick with you, Three Billboards most especially.

I rarely delve into plot, but I’m not spoiling anything by saying that the movie in a nutshell is about a mother’s search for justice for her slain daughter, in a rather messy and definitely confrontational way, weaving a tangled web involving everyone around her.

Three Billboards is fiery, brash, foul-mouthed, and not afraid to go to some dark places, yet somehow, in a very twisted, Martin McDonagh way, it has genuine heart and humanity, which is maybe the most surprising thing about it.

Of course, the movie would not be nearly as noteworthy without quality performances, which you get from almost everybody you need to get them from (I wouldn’t be surprised to see McDormand get some awards season buzz). The only one who threw me was Abbie Cornish, because I thought she had an American accent early on, but then at one point she slipped into an English accent and kept it for the rest of the movie; I’m still confused as to why.

All-in-all though, Three Billboards, not unexpectedly, is one of the best of the year.

Rating: ★★★★½ (out of five)

Written and Directed by Dan Gilroy
Cast: Denzel Washington, Colin Farrell, Carmen Ejogo, Lynda Gravatt, Amanda Warren, Hugo Armstrong, Sam Gilroy, Tony Plana, DeRon Horton, Amari Cheatom, Vince Cefalu, Nazneen Contractor, Robert Prescott, Shelley Hennig, Annie Sertich, Esperanza Spalding, Jessica Camacho, Ajgie Kirkland, Ludwig Manukian, Joseph David-Jones, Pej Vahdat, Henry G. Sanders, Miles Heizer
Soundtrack: James Newton Howard

Dan Gilroy’s directorial debut was Nightcrawler, which was one of the best films of 2014, and is still one of the best L.A. movies of recent vintage.

It’s a harsh standard to live up to, but Roman J. Israel, Esq. is no Nightcrawler.

Not that I’m going to compare and contrast them to death, because they are ultimately different, but they do both revolve around eccentric characters who come out of their shells a bit and take massive risks for the sake of sizable financial gain.

In the case of Nightcrawler, you’re glued to the screen from start to finish, and the third act in particular is unrelentingly thrilling.

Israel, on the other hand, is very muddled.

Denzel Washington’s performance in the titular role is compelling to watch, and is generally on par with any of the great performances of his career. The problem is that there’s not much else around him (Colin Farrell in particular feels a little directionless), and in the end I’m left wondering if the movie is trying to be profound and failing, or attempting to be meaningless as a statement, but it’s not clear to me either way, leaving me feeling just a bit empty.

If you’re a huge Denzel fan, Roman J. Israel, Esq. is maybe worth a rental down the road, but that’s about it.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

Directed by Richard Linklater
Written by Richard Linklater & Darryl Ponicsan, based on his novel of the same name
Cast: Steve Carell, Bryan Cranston, Laurence Fishburne, J. Quinton Johnson, Deanna Reed-Foster, Yul Vazquez, Cicely Tyson
Soundtrack: Graham Reynolds

To be perfectly honest, I don’t have a particularly high opinion of Richard Linklater as a filmmaker, but I was willing to put that aside for a movie that appears to have a great cast, and a story that serves as a spiritual sequel to 1973’s The Last Detail (which is also based on a Darryl Ponicsan novel and is a movie I would recommend).

Linklater admittedly specializes in films where not a whole lot actually happens, and sometimes such movies can work really well, but Last Flag Flying is not one of them.

In terms of the core (Corps?) performances, Steve Carell is great, Laurence Fishburne is fine, and Bryan Cranston is sub-par.

I know that’s a heretical statement, because he’s everyone’s favorite actor because Breaking Bad is the greatest (he’s one of mine, too), but Bryan Cranston is not beyond a turkey of a performance from time to time; I’ve seen it happen before. And I don’t necessarily blame him, because if this is the performance he brought or the performance he was directed to, and nobody told him it wasn’t great, that’s not his fault.

Anyway, it’s not like he’s the only problem.

The movie overall (especially in the dialogue) feels like a college film (not to mention its an early 2000s period piece that sometimes cares about the details and sometimes doesn’t care at all). Whether Linklater or Ponicsan is more at fault for the lackluster script, I don’t know, but since this was Linklater’s baby, I’m going to leave the blame on his doorstep.

To put it the most simply, this is a movie that needs to feel real and just doesn’t. The most egregious example is the mildly antagonistic Marine colonel, who is made-up and lit to look like a pale vampire, as if it’s not already painfully obvious that we are supposed to dislike him.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Last Flag Flying perfectly portrays the dynamic of three old military buddies getting together after forty years, but it mostly just strikes me as off-base.

Definitely check out The Last Detail though, if you’ve not already seen it.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

Written and Directed by Greta Gerwig
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Tracy Letts, Lucas Hedges, Timothée Chalamet, Beanie Feldstein, Stephen Henderson, Lois Smith, Odeya Rush, Kathryn Newton, Jake McDorman, Bayne Gibby, Laura Marano, Andy Buckley, Jordan Rodrigues, Kristen Cloke, Daniel Zovatto, Bob Stephenson, Marielle Scott, Myra Turley, Richard Jin, Ithamar Enriquez, Carla Valentine
Soundtrack: Jon Brion

Talk about a surprise.

I really only saw this movie because I needed to kill time before something else, so perhaps it benefits from my complete lack of expectation, but I am honestly at a loss to find much fault with Lady Bird.

I don’t know too much about Greta Gerwig, other than she appears in movies I don’t see because I have no interest in them, but she really knocked it out of the park with this one. If the “teen girl coming-of-age” sub-genre hasn’t been done to death by now, it’s definitely in a stale place, and yet everything about Lady Bird feels fresh (and it’s an early 2000s period piece that actually cares the whole time, unlike certain other movies).

One of the major reasons why the film works so well is that it’s short, sweet, and to the point, because it covers pretty much a whole year in our main character’s life in ninety minutes, paradoxically using the whole cow and trimming all the fat at the same time.

It’s a fairly familiar story: Senior-itis, young love, teen rebellion, trying to be cool, applying to colleges, etc., but everything feels pretty spot on and earnest, unlike other similar movies where characters often feel like caricatures more so than real people.

Much like Three Billboards (if not to a larger extent), everyone who needs to turn in a quality performance in Lady Bird does so (Tracy Letts in particular stuck out to me in his supporting role as the dad). Saoirse Ronan is the star, to be sure, but this is ensemble casting at its finest.

It might not be quite appropriate for actual teenagers (and, given that it takes place in a time before they were born, I don’t know that they’d get out of it what a thirty-something audience would), but it definitely belongs in the pantheon of the genre, and it’s for sure one of the best movies I’ve seen this year.

Surprisingly.

Rating: ★★★★½ (out of five)