Jennifer Jason Leigh – People Talking

Twofer Movie Review – ‘The Predator’ and ‘White Boy Rick’ – On the Hunt

Full disclosure, it’s been such a down year for movies (especially compared to last year) that I may be overrating both of these, but what are you going to do?

Directed by Shane Black
Written by Fred Dekker & Shane Black, based on characters created by Jim & John Thomas
Cast: Boyd Holbrook, Trevante Rhodes, Jacob Tremblay, Olivia Munn, Sterling K. Brown, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane, Alfie Allen, Augusto Aguilera, Yvonne Strahovski, Jake Busey, Niall Matter, Brian A. Prince
Soundtrack: Henry Jackman

Shane Black films are notoriously difficult to market because he has such a specific tone (and often suffers from studio interference), The Predator being no exception, but I think his fans get largely what they expect from him with this one, as the movie feels like a mix of John McTiernan’s 1987 original with another film from that same year, The Monster Squad, which seems appropriate given that Black and [Fred] Dekker wrote that one as well.

It’s a shame that the title is such soft reboot nonsense, because this is a legitimate sequel, keeping at least Predator and Predator 2 in canon (I’ve still not seen Predators even though everybody tells me it’s alright; I’ll get to it eventually). Certain fan service moments feel a bit cringy, but overall I can’t fault Black and Dekker for wanting to make a movie for existing fans, while also putting their own stamp on it (and I really appreciated Henry Jackman’s adaptation of many pieces from Alan Silvestri’s scores from the first two, giving the film a nice throwback feel at least in the music).

Now, I’ve seen at least one person call the movie “a mess”, and I can understand why they would say that, because there are a number of elements that shouldn’t necessarily be in the same film together, but, nevertheless, I had fun, which is all I really wanted (and if nothing else it’s a more satisfying experience than Predator 2).

And I’m so glad it’s R-rated.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Directed by Yann Demange
Written by Andy Weiss and Logan & Noah Miller
Cast: Richie Merritt, Matthew McConaughey, Bel Powley, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Brian Tyree Henry, Rory Cochrane, RJ Cyler, Jonathan Majors, Eddie Marsan, Bruce Dern, Piper Laurie, YG, Taylour Paige, Danny Brown, IshDARR, Kyanna Simone Simpson, Kwon Haynes
Soundtrack: Max Richter

The synopsis for this movie is in big, bold letters right on the poster, so there’s no need to waste too much time on it, but suffice it to say it’s a story worth bringing to the silver screen.

White Boy Rick effectively rests on the shoulders of two actors, newcomer Richie Merritt and old hand Matthew McConaughey, and they carry it with aplomb.

Sure, the true life story is actually interesting, and I can’t think of a supporting actor who truly sticks out like a sore thumb, but without these two guys executing at the level that they do, the film would be much worse off.

Of course I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention director Yann Demange (if he wasn’t already he’s definitely a director to keep an eye on now), who manages to bring together an entertaining yet poignant movie out of some pretty dark and dour material. I’m sure some people will try to argue that the movie glorifies crime (like always), but I think it’s akin to Goodfellas in terms of a frank look at the lifestyle, the reasoning, and the consequences.

Lastly, composer Max Richter continues to do outstanding minimalist work, and his score for White Boy Rick is pitch perfect, appropriately apportioning synth-wave and traditional sounds with the right touch of melody and dissonance when needed.

And, again, I’m glad the movie’s R-rated.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Movie Review – ‘Annihilation’ – Into The Mystic

Written and Directed by Alex Garland, based on the novel by Jeff VanderMeer
Cast: Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Gina Rodriguez, Tessa Thompson, Tuva Novotny, Oscar Isaac, Benedict Wong, Sonoya Mizuno, David Gyasi
Soundtrack: Geoff Barrow & Ben Salisbury

Before I even get into the movie, I think it would be helpful to contextualize it, because I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a bit confused going in.

Alex Garland’s Annihilation is based on the novel of the same name by Jeff VanderMeer, the first book in the so-called Southern Reach Trilogy. At the time Garland wrote his screenplay, only the first novel had been published; he knew that others were to follow, but his movie is based purely on the first book, and as such, as far as I can tell, the movie is a standalone story. It’s not intended to set anything else up; it’s just one movie and one movie only. Hopefully knowing this will help to properly calibrate your expectations should you choose to go see the film.

I was rooting for Annihilation, I really was. A smart, mid-budget, hard sci-fi thriller that nobody picked up international theatrical rights for because it was “too intellectual” seemed like something I could get behind, and for much of the running time I was totally on board, but, like so many “could have been great” movies, it kind of falls apart in the third act, but we’ll come back to that.

In addition to its roots as a novel, Annihilation is also a movie that, intentionally or not, appears to wear its influences on its sleeve. I may not be a sci-fi expert, but I know Tarkovsky, Kubrick, and even a little Carpenter when I see it. This is not to say that paying homage is inherently bad, but when it’s not on the same level of what it’s trying to be (or what other people are purporting it to be), that’s a bit of a letdown.

This is not to say that the movie is without merit (or that it’s a mere ripoff). The performances are fairly solid, there are some well-executed and interesting visuals (one in particular that’s virtually impossible to describe), and it does a good job at maintaining a particular mood.

That is, until the end.

It’s hard to pin down exactly what the third act problem is with Annihilation, but I think it mostly comes down to what gets paid off (and/or how much) and what doesn’t. I can’t say too much more than that without getting into spoilers, but basically there were certain moments where I wish I had gotten a little more and other moments where less would have been fine.

On the whole, it’s a solid effort, worth seeing once, but not necessarily a must-see in theaters, which is a shame. Maybe I just don’t jibe with Alex Garland that well (like I don’t jibe with Ben Wheatley), and maybe it got over-hyped for me, but, even still, I expected a little more.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Movie Review – ‘Good Time’ – Break On Through

Directed by The Safdie Brothers (Benny & Josh)
Written by Ronald Bronstein & Joshua Safdie
Cast: Robert Pattinson, Benny Safdie, Taliah Webster, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Barkhad Abdi, Necro, Peter Verby, Rose Gregorio, Eric Paykert, Rachel Black, Robert Clohessy, Craig muMs Grant, George Lee Miles, Roy James Wilson
Soundtrack: Daniel Lopatin

I know I’ve expressed similar sentiments before, but when I first saw the trailer for Good Time, I didn’t really know what to make of it (mainly, I was confused as to what Robert Pattinson was doing in this mysterious, probably low budget, urban crime thriller; although it’s not the first time he’s been confounding). As time went on, however, it began to grow on me, and I became more excited.

Then I made the terrible mistake of putting on a couple of other Safdie Brothers films for research sake, and I became much less excited. I mean, I don’t know if you’ve ever seen Daddy Longlegs or Heaven Knows What, but they are definitely not what I’d call “feel-good” pieces (not to mention the glut of unlikable characters, obviously non-professional actors, the out-of-nowhere full-frontal female nudity, and general sense of discomfort while watching).

However, I do pride myself on going into every movie I review with a clean slate, and I’m especially glad I did in this case, because Good Time, while not necessarily “fun” as the title might suggest (or, rather, you might infer), is nothing less than a compelling breakthrough effort from these young directors (and their writing collaborator, Ronald Bronstein).

Love them or hate them, Benny and Josh Safdie know New York City (the real city, where real people walk and talk and live and breathe; not that Hollywood version), which is a core strength of this film. Honestly, Good Time is a neon-soaked William Friedkin-meets-Michael Mann fever dream (or is it a Tangerine Dream?), with all of the street sense of the 1970s and 80s, and all of the digital sheen of our post-9/11 age.

That said, I’m not sure exactly how much we’d have to work with if not for the presence of one Mr. Robert Pattinson. To say he “commands the screen” would be an understatement. Not to say that he’s completely alone; Benny Safdie himself turns in a striking performance as Pattinson’s brother, there’s a brief and effective appearance from Captain Phillips’ Barkhad Abdi, and even some of the non-professionals pay off, but from start-to-finish Pattinson is electrically captivating. I don’t know if he’ll get any major awards buzz, but he probably should, because this is his movie, period.

One element I must discuss is the score, which is mostly a strength but also somewhat of a weakness. The style is fine, a welcome homage to the electronic scores of days gone by (Tangerine Dream, Giorgio Moroder, etc.), but at times it’s just straight up overbearing in its usage. Not an unforgivable sin, but definitely noticeable, especially towards the beginning of the movie.

As I said before though, Good Time is a tremendous breakthrough effort for the Safdie Brothers, and it’s nice to see what these young filmmakers can do with a more of a budget (which they put to good use). The story feels real and fresh, and it spirals out of control with genuine surprises along the way.

I’m not sure how well it will play with general audiences around the country (there’s one scene in particular that is hair-raisingly uncomfortable), but, for my money, it’s one of the most earnest NYC movies I’ve seen in some time, which is worth something.

Give it a look if you can find it.

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S.
The credits play over the end of the last scene of the movie. Not really a stinger, not necessarily worth sticking around for, but it’s there.

Quick Thoughts – November Round-Up, Part 2

‘Charley Varrick’ (1973)

Over many decades, Don Siegel directed his fair share of films that left an indelible mark on American culture. From the original ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ to ‘Dirty Harry’ and beyond, his movies often struck a paradoxical balance of gritty realism and slick style, ‘Charley Varrick’ being no exception (it should come as little surprise that guys like Quentin Tarantino and Brian Helgeland are big fans of it).

Bolstered by a strong lead performance from Walter Matthau (is he underrated?) as the titular Mr. Varrick, as well as Joe Don Baker in a classic heavy hitman role, along with many of the usual Don Siegel regulars (Andrew Sullivan, John Vernon, Sheree North, Albert Popwell, etc.), ‘Charley Varrick’ is the tale of a crop-duster turned small-town bank robber who unintentionally takes down the score of a lifetime. The bad news is that it’s dirty money, property of the mob, and Charley knows the only way to walk away with it is to make the ultimate getaway.

Once again, they don’t make movies like this anymore. Frankly, you can’t make movies like this anymore unless you set them back in time, before cell phones began to infringe on every aspect of human existence.

It’s not an action-packed thrill ride (although there’s some good action in the sense that it’s practical and in service of the story), and Charley Varrick himself is something of an anti-hero, but the movie works well as a battle of wits versus brute force.

I highly recommend it as a lazy Saturday afternoon kind of movie.

Rating: ★★★★☆

‘The Hitcher’ (1986)

Many have tried (and mostly failed) to get the action-horror genre working, but other than ‘Aliens‘ (and, more recently, ‘Train to Busan’), few have executed it as well as 1986’s ‘The Hitcher’.

That’s not to say it’s perfect, but for a movie about an all-American kid and a crazy hitchhiker going head-to-head, an idea you might think would get old real fast, ‘The Hitcher’ gets a lot right. For one thing, there are more than enough twists and turns to keep you going, but it’s also got the cast down pat. Rutger Hauer is perfect as the mysterious and deadly John Ryder (get it?), C. Thomas Howell is totally believable as a young man in the wrong place at the wrong time (not unlike a classic Hitchcock protagonist), and Jennifer Jason Leigh is more than serviceable as the non-love-interest.

The movie itself is also an interesting contradiction; brutal, bleak, and practically nihilistic on the one hand (it’s a horror movie and horrific things happen), yet gorgeous (shot by John Seale, who’s last director of photography gig was on a little movie you may have heard of called ‘Mad Max: Fury Road‘), surreal, and undeniably (though never explicitly stated) supernatural on the other. If ‘Duel‘ and ‘American Psycho’ had a baby, you’d get something like this.

Like I said, not a perfect movie, but quite a trip (from Hell!).

Rating: ★★★½

‘Harriet the Spy’ (1996)

“And now for something completely different.”

Before you even ask, yes, they showed the ‘Hey, Arnold!’ pilot before the movie at this screening (because it was an original 35mm print, and in that context the two are a packaged deal).

I didn’t think any film could get more achingly Nineties than ‘The Crow’ (not that I don’t love it), but ‘Harriet the Spy’ might just take the crown (it’s also highly Canadian, but that’s Nickelodeon for you, at least in the 80s and 90s for sure).

Honestly, I’m not sure what to entirely make of this movie. All of the kid actors are at least passable (Michelle Trachtenberg in particular displays a charisma beyond her years), which is good; and there’s definitely a lot of creativity on display, I just question what it’s all in service of. Presumably, Harriet is supposed to have an arc, which sort of happens, but in the end I couldn’t help feeling that she was having her cake and eating it, too.

On the whole, the movie is notable for being the first Nickelodeon feature film, and in that regard it’s an interesting time capsule, but I don’t know that it holds up as a movie for children.

Not terrible, but not great.

Rating: ★★½

‘Singin’ in the Rain’ (1952)

For better or worse, it’s as timely as ever to talk about this film, in that, since the screening I attended in late November, both Debbie Reynolds and her daughter Carrie Fisher sadly passed away (the latter ahead of the former); and, more recently, ‘La La Land’ took home seven out of seven at the Golden Globes, once again propagating the popular notion that Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood at the expense of all other movies (although, disappointingly, this didn’t exactly extend to ‘Hail, Caesar!’, but I digress).

You might think, given its reputation, that ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ won tons of awards in its day, but it actually was only nominated for two Oscars (no wins). Nevertheless, it is an undeniable classic. It’s colorful, it’s heartwarming, it’s fun, it’s hilarious, it’s got wonderful song and dance numbers (although, again, you might not know that most of the songs actually were lifted from other musicals of the late 1920s and 30s), and it rightfully put Debbie Reynolds on the map (Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor were already household names, though they are both fantastic in this movie). My only real criticism is that the Broadway Melody section takes up so much of the runtime, but, in comparison to other musicals of the era, ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ is far from the worst offender in this regard.

It’s a film about film, to be sure, but the decision to frame everything around the transition from silent movies to talking pictures was a stroke of genius, because that unto itself makes for a compelling story.

What else can I say? Believe the hype on this one.

Rating: ★★★★½