Jesse Plemons – 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 – ‘The Post’ – Truth and Consequences

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Written by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer

Cast: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts, Bradley Whitford, Bruce Greenwood, Matthew Rhys, Alison Brie, Carrie Coon, Jesse Plemons, David Cross, Zach Woods, Pat Healy, John Rue, Rick Holmes, Philip Casnoff, Jessie Mueller, Stark Sands, Michael Cyril Creighton, Will Denton, Deirdre Lovejoy, Jennifer Dundas, Austyn Johnson, Brent Langdon, Michael Stuhlbarg, Deborah Green, Gary Wilmes, Christopher Innvar, Justin Swain, Kenneth Tigar, David Aaron Baker, Gannon McHale, Dan Bucatinsky, David Costabile, Johanna Day, Annika Boras, Carolyn McCormick, Peter Van Wagner, Angus Hepburn, James Riordan, Kelly AuCoin, Cotter Smith, Ben Livingston, JaQwan J. Kelly, Shaun O’Hagan, Celeste Arias, Sonny Valicenti, Aaron Roman Weiner, Tom Bair, Mark Jacoby, Curzon Dobell, Neal Huff

Soundtrack: John Williams

Before Watergate.
Before Woodward and Bernstein.
There were The Pentagon Papers.
And thus began the rise of The Washington Post to national prominence, and the downfall of the presidency of one Richard Milhous Nixon.

I said this before when I reviewed Bridge of Spies, and I think it bears repeating. It’s become somewhat popular to hate on Steven Spielberg, and I get it (I mean, I’m about as excited to see Ready Player One as I am to get food poisoning, or cancer), but the fact remains, he’s still Steven Spielberg.

I’m not going to tell you that The Post is “Classic Spielberg”, reminiscent of his heyday in the Seventies and Eighties, but it does at least hearken back to his run in the early Aughts, which isn’t so bad (Catch Me If You Can, anyone?).

On its face, The Post isn’t anything particularly special. It’s nothing that hasn’t been done before, and none of the performances, even from the Oscar winners in the room, are really anything to write home about (though it is fun to see Bob and David in a Spielberg movie together). Yet, somehow, I’m left feeling satisfied, which leads me to conclude that film is greater than the sum of its parts, and I believe that is largely due to that wily old veteran director, Steven Spielberg (and his near-constant collaborator, John Williams; who’s getting up there, kids, so maybe savor this one while we still have them to savor).

For all of his softening and head-scratching decisions over the past fifteen years, the man still knows how to bring a script to life and make it pop, and he still knows where to throw in his signature touches (like those little one-ers you don’t really notice, but your brain does). Was he the absolute best choice to handle this particular material? Maybe not, but they certainly could have done a lot worse.

Speaking of the material, kudos to first-time screenwriter Liz Hannah, who was the initial rolling snowball of this avalanche, and executive producer and writer Josh Singer (who, unsurprisingly, held the same positions on Spotlight), for putting together yet another intricate and no doubt incredibly well-researched period journalism piece (to have a script with roughly fifty real-life people portrayed by credited actors in a two-hour movie just goes to show how deep the dive was). Much like Spotlight (and in contrast to All the President’s Men), The Post works whether you lived though the events or not.

However, I wouldn’t say The Post is all-in-all on the same level as Spotlight, which is to say I don’t think it’s Best Picture material, and the subtext of the film given the current climate is fairly obvious, but still, perhaps for reasons I can’t fully articulate, I have zero issue recommending it.

It’ll make you real depressed about the Vietnam War (but then what doesn’t?), but if you’re a fan of Spielberg, journalism, and/or the First Amendment, The Post‘ll be right up your alley.

Rating: ★★★★☆

True Life Twofer – ‘American Made’ and ‘Battle of the Sexes’ – Nothing Special

Nothing really connects these two films other than the old “based on a true story” moniker, but they did go wide the same day, so here we are. I wanted to like them; I tried, but…

American Made

Directed by Doug Liman
Written by Gary Spinelli
Cast: Tom Cruise, Domhnall Gleeson, Sarah Wright, Jesse Plemons, Caleb Landry Jones, Lola Kirke, Jayma Mays, Alejandro Edda, Benito Martinez, E. Roger Mitchell, Jed Rees, Jayson Warner Smith, William Mark McCullough, Mickey Sumner
Soundtrack: Christophe Beck

The last time Tom Cruise and Doug Liman got together resulted in one of the best action movies of the new millennium, so I had reasonably high expectations going into this one.

Unfortunately, my hopes were dashed fairly quickly.

For one thing, somebody decided it would be a good idea to shoot American Made like a Duplass Brothers film (complete with annoying snap zooms), which, for the life of me, I cannot understand, anymore than I can understand all of the praise for Tom Cruise that I’ve been seeing. I mean, I like Tom. He still does great movies from time to time (mostly of the Mission: Impossible variety, but that’s fine), but boy oh boy can he not pull off even the slightest of accents.

Really though, these are just nitpicks compared to the bigger issues.

There are two fatal flaws with American Made. One, despite the “based on a true story” label, the movie is severely lacking in verisimilitude, especially in the performances (and I mean across the board), and, two, we’ve seen this kind of story done better already, and in particular I mean Blow. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, I don’t mind if you play fast and loose with the truth, but the movie better be interesting and at least feel real within the world of the story, and American Made largely fails at both.

This is not to say it’s entirely bad. There’s a fair amount of entertainment value from the flying scenes (which are sadly shrouded in deadly controversy), and a few moments of good humor, but other than that there’s not a whole lot to grab onto.

I wish I could rate it higher, but my heart tells me no.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

Battle of the Sexes

Directed by Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris
Written by Simon Beaufoy
Cast: Emma Stone, Steve Carell, Andrea Riseborough, Sarah Silverman, Bill Pullman, Alan Cumming, Elisabeth Shue, Natalie Morales, Eric Christian Olsen, Fred Armisen, Martha MacIsaac, Mickey Sumner, Jessica McNamee, Austin Stowell, Wallace Langham, Bridey Elliott, Lewis Pullman, James Mackay, Enuka Okuma, Mark Harelik, Jamey Sheridan, Chip Chinery, Chris Parnell, John C. McGinley
Soundtrack: Nicholas Britell

Speaking of lack of verisimilitude, let’s talk Battle of the Sexes.

To be fair, this one doesn’t play with the truth nearly as much as American Made, but outside of Emma Stone as Billie Jean King, Steve Carell as Bobby Riggs, and the fantastic period costuming, this one fell rather flat as well, not to mention obsolete.

I say obsolete because ever since ESPN debuted its 30 for 30 series in 2009, and showed the world the depths to which sports documentaries could now reach, the idea of the classic “based on a true story” sports movie has become rather outmoded. Not to say that any genre can’t still be done well, but I’m not sure Battle of the Sexes did justice to the story it attempted to tell, nor, frankly, did it do justice to being an entertaining film. I tell you what though, if ESPN ever does a 30 for 30 on it, I’m all in.

One of the big problems is the pacing, due largely to the fact that the movie spends an inordinate amount of its two hour runtime tightly focused on the affair between Billie Jean King and her lover, Marilyn Barnett. Undoubtedly, it was a crucial part of King’s life, and I’m not arguing it should go without any mention, but it doesn’t add much to the film other than to set up a moment that was obviously made up for dramatic purposes.

Beyond that though, there’s just a lot about this movie, performances especially, that feels one-dimensional. Maybe much of the dialogue was inspired or directly quoted from real conversations, I don’t know, but most of the characters in Battle of the Sexes feel more like caricatures than real people, which would be fine if it was more of the comedy it was advertised as, but not in a film attempting to deal with real life drama.

Again, Stone and Carell are great, but they’re not enough to push this one into recommendation territory, which is sad.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

P.S.
No stingers of any kind on either film.

Movie Review – ‘Bridge of Spies’ – Donovan’s Double Down

Directed by Steven Spielberg
Written by Matt Charman and Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Cast: Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Alan Alda, Amy Ryan, Austin Stowell, Michael Gor, John Rue, Billy Magnussen, Jesse Plemons, Michael Gaston, James Lorinz, Brian Hutchison, Martin Dew
Soundtrack: Thomas Newman

It’s become somewhat popular to hate on Steven Spielberg.

I understand why: as he’s gotten older he’s maybe lost some of his edge and has made at least one grave mistake; but on the whole I find this rather disingenuous.

First of all, nothing can ever change the fact that he has personally auteured, at minimum, a handful of the greatest movies ever made. Secondly, it’s perfectly natural for an artist’s work to have some degradation over time; I mean, did anyone really expect ‘War Horse’ to be better than ‘Saving Private Ryan’? People get older; it happens. I give the guy a lot of credit that he’s still a major director, let alone that he’s still producing work that’s actually good (it’s a lot more than you can say about many of his directorial contemporaries).

So, where does ‘Bridge of Spies’ fit into all of this?

Well, in some ways it’s more of the same: it’s over two hours long, it’s a period piece, it’s a historical drama, it’s got Germans, Tom Hanks, and sometimes it’s a little cornball.

In other ways it feels like a radical departure. Since 1974, Steven Spielberg has been a director on 29 feature films: 14 of which have been shot by Janusz Kaminski, who shot ‘Bridge of Spies’; 26 of which have been edited by Michael Kahn, who edited ‘Bridge of Spies’; and 26 of which have been scored by John Williams, who did not score ‘Bridge of Spies’.

That’s right. For the first time in 30 years (‘The Color Purple’), John Williams, the Brady to Spielberg’s Belichick (or maybe vice versa; who knows?), did not compose the music for a Steven Spielberg movie. In fact, there’s very little music in general throughout the runtime of ‘Bridge of Spies’, and most of the pivotal scenes aren’t scored at all. Now, according to Spielberg himself, this was the plan all along even before it was revealed that John Williams would not be physically able to compose the score (don’t worry, kids; he’ll be back for ‘The BFG’), but, frankly, the overall absence of music (and John Williams music in particular) is so atypical that I venture to say this is the least Spielbergian Spielberg movie ever. I admit though, not having seen his entire catalogue, I’m not the most qualified person to make such a statement.

Besides that major departure, what else is notable about ‘Bridge of Spies’?

Honestly, the element I was most impressed by was the attention to detail in the production. There’s nothing worse, even if you’re not an expert, than seeing something you know shouldn’t be there while watching a period piece, and in that regard ‘Bridge of Spies’ is top notch. Every set, location, prop, costume, and hair and makeup style looks exactly how it should. It’s not exactly a surprise to learn that production designer Adam Stockhausen won an Oscar for ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’, and set decorator Rena DeAngelo won an Emmy for “Mad Men”, and I expect to see their names come next awards season.

Other than that, Tom Hanks is a good as you’d expect him to be, I really liked Mark Rylance in a quiet but vital supporting role (I was totally unfamiliar with him before this film), and I liked the fact that this story was being told at all, and its message of what it means to be to be American. It’s a bit preachy in the first half hour or so, but after that the movie becomes very matter of fact, which I also appreciated.

On the other hand, I do have some minor criticisms. For one thing, I don’t know for sure whether ‘Bridge of Spies’ was shot on film or not, at the very least it looks way better than a Michael Mann movie, but, during the U-2 crash sequence (which is not a spoiler) everything all of a sudden looked real fakey-fake, which, given the realism of the rest of the movie, was quite the sore thumb. Also, especially with a historical film, I generally like to be aware of the time, place, and timeframe of events, and ‘Bridge of Spies’ was lacking in this area. I always knew where things were happening, but outside of an initial title card stating 1957, I could not tell that the events of this movie were taking place over a five year period. Finally, there’s some back and forth movement between James B. Donovan’s story and Francis Gary Powers’ story that I found unnecessary, and could have easily been cut out of the film for the sake of time.

In the end, I liked ‘Bridge of Spies’ quite a bit, and it deserves reasonably high praise, but I also know that not everyone will like it, and quite a few people will likely find it boring. It’s a quiet film, it’s very unreliant on action, and in many ways it feels like a product of the period it’s portraying. It may not add up to much box office success for Spielberg, and I don’t even know that I’d consider it Best Picture material (though, knowing how the Academy works, it probably will be), but if you are a fan of, or at least don’t mind historical dramas, then ‘Bridge of Spies’ is certainly worth your time.

And if you don’t think that Steven Spielberg is an artistic director, the opening scene will definitely give you a little something to chew on.

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S. I say this not to spoil anything, but rather to properly manage expectations: the advertising for ‘Bridge of Spies’ makes it appear as if the entire film is about James B. Donovan’s negotiations to exchange a Soviet spy for Francis Gary Powers, but in actuality this plot line doesn’t occur until the second half of the movie. There’s more to the story covered in the first half.