Oscar Isaac – 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 – ‘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: ★★★☆☆

Twofer Movie Review – ‘Suburbicon’ and ‘Thank You For Your Service’ – The War at Home

I guess at this point I’ve now officially, completely come full circle.

The genesis of my writings here came in the wake of seeing George Clooney’s The Monuments Men, which I went into wanting to love but in the end just couldn’t, but I realized that I had a lot to say about it. So, after a few months, I created this space to share my thoughts, and three-plus years later I’m still doing it.

So, thanks, George Clooney?

I’m certainly not going to thank him for Suburbicon.

Suburbicon

Directed by George Clooney
Written by Joel & Ethan Coen and George Clooney & Grant Heslov
Cast: Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, Oscar Isaac, Noah Jupe, Jack Conley, Glenn Fleshler, Steve Monroe, Gary Basaraba, Ellen Crawford, Alex Hassell, Steven M. Porter, Pamela Dunlap, Robert Pierce, Vince Cefalu
Soundtrack: Alexandre Desplat

Perhaps someone else has already drawn this comparison, but I see George Clooney and Angelina Jolie as equivalents: fine leading actors who have made for less-than-stellar directors, each suffering from the same issues, namely tone and focus.

Suburbicon is not at all dissimilar from The Monuments Men (or Unbroken for Jolie) in that both are fantastic-looking period pieces with great casts giving quality but ultimately undirected performances, and both can’t figure out what kind of movie they want to be.

At the time, I gave Clooney some benefit of the doubt for Monuments Men because I figured maybe he had just taken on too much as the writer, director, and star. For Suburbicon, however, he has no such cover, because he’s not in the film, so I’m left to conclude that he simply is who he is as a filmmaker. In the case of both movies, they could have been great in the hands of different directors; specifically, Steven Soderbergh for Monuments Men, and the Coen Brothers for Suburbicon (who had some role in the script for both this film, and, again, Unbroken).

Regardless, Suburbicon is, in a word, unfulfilling. It’s a satire with no punch, a dark comedy with no laughs, and a MacGuffin of No MacGuffin (which you can do if you’re the Coen Brothers, but Clooney is no Coen, as much as I’m sure he’d like to be).

Even worse though, it’s distasteful, as one of the through lines of the film is the introduction of Suburbicon’s first black family, the Mayers, whose arrival is greeted with shock, outrage, and, eventually, violence (all of which is a barely-veiled reference to the real-life William and Daisy Meyers, the first black couple in Levittown, PA, whose arrival was met with similar unrest). If this was actually worked into the plot somehow, or if it was more than just the two children who had interaction, I probably would feel differently about it, but as it is it’s just kind of in the background, which feels plain wrong (not to mention the timing relative to current events is not great).

However, I will mention one silver lining on this thundercloud of Suburbicon doom, and that is Oscar Isaac. His screen-time is all too brief, but his performance is fantastic, and his character is about the only one with any explicit motivation, so, kudos to him.

In the end though, Suburbicon as a whole is a failure, and I can’t in good conscience recommend it.

Sorry, George.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

Thank You For Your Service

Written and Directed by Jason Hall
Based on the book by David Finkel
Cast: Miles Teller, Haley Bennett, Joe Cole, Amy Schumer, Beulah Koale, Scott Haze, Keisha Castle-Hughes, Kate Lyn Sheil, Erin Darke, Kerry Cahill, Omar J. Dorsey, Brad Beyer, Allison King, Jayson Warner Smith, Tony Winters
Soundtrack: Thomas Newman

Another week, another based-on-a-true-story movie starring Miles Teller (he’s really carved out a niche there, hasn’t he?).

This is a hard movie for me to judge due to the subject matter. I am for sure not a veteran, let alone a combat veteran of America’s most recent armed conflicts, so I understand that my opinion in this case carries less weight, and I’m always curious to see what consensus the military community comes to on this kind of film, but in the meantime, I just know what my eyes and ears tell me.

Thank You For Your Service is the story of a few soldiers attempting to adjust to life back home after returning from a nearly year-long deployment in Iraq, and is the feature debut of writer/director Jason Hall, who previously wrote the screenplay for American Sniper.

Right off the bat, I’ll say that I found American Sniper to be much more impactful, probably because Clint Eastwood is an infinitely more experienced filmmaker (not to mention he had a bigger budget and more action-driven material to work with). Thank You For Your Service isn’t terrible, it’s definitely better than a movie-of-the-week production, but I’m reluctant to call it exceptional.

I haven’t read the book it’s adapted from, but I have a feeling if I did read it I’d often be asking, “Why did they put X in and not Y?” I’m not unsympathetic; I know it’s tough to put everything you want into a film, it’s a condensed medium, but there was more I wanted to see once the movie ended that I felt should have been included, so that’s one strike.

Also, the core cast is fine (again, not great, but acceptable), but there were a few minor characters whose scenes took me out of the movie. I get it, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, but if it’s in a movie, it needs to be believable for the audience (see: verisimilitude), so that’s another strike.

Ultimately, while I feel it could have brought more to the table, Thank You For Your Service just barely gets on base because I think movies like this are important. In an era where the gap between civilian and military has never been wider, we need films and other media like this to help understand and develop some empathy for what it really means when we send our troops into harm’s way, and the physical, emotional, and mental toll it takes on them.

Thank You For Your Service is far from perfect, but at the very least it’s a step in the right direction.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Quick Thoughts – Summer Round-Up, Part 1

I’ve seen so many movies this past summer, new and [mostly] classic alike, that I’m a bit overwhelmed. Consider this my first effort in clearing out the old backlog.

‘Rumble In The Bronx’ (1995)

After seeing this one, I determined that people who don’t respect Jackie Chan have no place in my life. Whether or not his movies appeal to you, you have to recognize the commitment he has to his craft. There’s a shot in this film (left in the final cut) in which the result for ol’ Jackie was, as the NHL would call it, a pretty severe “lower body injury”. What I’m saying here is that he basically made the movie on one leg, and you’d never know. Does all of the Eastern humor and melodrama translate for Western audiences? I’d have to say no. Does that really matter? Again, I’d have to say no (just like it doesn’t matter that Vancouver stood in for NYC). When it comes to Chan, you want incredible stunts and captivating fight scenes, and this one delivers. Honestly, it may not be “lethal”, but the fight with the gang (anyone else miss the inexplicably multi-racial celluloid gangs of the late 20th century?) near the end of the film is actually beautiful in its rhythm. Heck, even the man’s warm-ups are impressive. It might not be his best, but ‘Rumble in the Bronx’ finally made Jackie Chan a star in America, and rightfully so.

Rating: ★★★½

‘The French Connection’ (1971)

Not too much I can say about this one. Five Oscars (Picture, Director, Actor, Adapted Screenplay, and Editing) and an amazing car chase with quite a story. Growing up in a post-70s world, with all the action movies that followed in the genre, it’s honestly hard for me to grasp that a police movie (at least an American one) could be recognized as serious art, but this is a serious movie nonetheless. It might not be the most purely entertaining film, but it’s definitely worth seeing more than once (if only for that car chase).

Rating: ★★★★½

‘Ex Machina’ (2015)

Walking out of the theater, I had a much higher opinion of this movie than I do now. It’s pretty good; it’s well photographed, and it has a very small cast of good actors giving good performances (including my boy Oscar Isaac), but the more time has passed, the more empty I feel about it, and I don’t feel all that motivated to revisit it. There are certain genres right now, namely horror, sci-fi, and thriller (of which this movie has elements of all three), that are so down overall that moviegoers keep looking for that “messiah movie” to rescue the genre, and they’ll latch on to anything with potential. ‘The Gift‘ got exactly this kind of treatment, and, like ‘The Gift’, this is a solid directorial debut for Alex Garland, but, also like ‘The Gift’, this movie is no messiah. It might not be a waste of your time, but I don’t think it’ll stand the test of time.

Rating: ★★½

‘The Connection’ aka ‘La French’ (2014)

I know what you’re thinking, “Another ‘French Connection’ movie?”

Well, there was the totally fictional yet very solid ‘French Connection II‘, but we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about a incredibly intense, gripping, and refreshing crime drama that almost feels like it was made in the period it presents (aka no CGI, just the real stuff). Yes, it’s a foreign film, and there are subtitles, but this movie transcends language barriers like few I’ve ever seen. More than a mere police procedural, this film deals with all the personal sacrifices real-life heroes must make for the sake of the greater good. It makes a great companion piece to William Friedkin’s masterpiece, but works perfectly on its own as well. I highly recommend it.

And you’ll certainly never look at Corsicans the same way again, if you even looked at them before.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Continued in Part 2…