Delayed Reaction: The Little Things

Premise: A former detective and a hot shot city detective try to find a serial killer.

 

I've tried starting this Reaction a few times and every time, it gets snarky very quickly. Instead, let me just be direct. This movie is based on a screenplay written in 1993 and it shows. The movie is set in the mid-90s for no specific reason. Other than cell phones maybe, there's isn't much to this that needs to be a period piece. More importantly though, this plays like any of the crime movies of the 90s. It's got the characters of a Se7en, the story of a Kiss the Girls, and the legal dubiousness of a Double Jeopardy. Even that much is fine. I enjoy a throwback. I too lament the disappearance of the mid-level budget movie for grownups. The problem is that the movie doesn't want to comment on anything from the last 25 years either. I'm not sure I need more movies about men terrorizing character-less women. Women exist in this movie to be pictures on Denzel Washington's wall, which is something I really thought we'd all moved past. The bigger issue though I can't really talk about without spoiling some of the movie. The way things resolve in the end of this movie involves a type of police work that is really tone deaf to the last few years. Partly thanks to Denzel's own work in Training Day, opinions of cops taking advantage of the rules to save their own asses have changed significantly. The movie doesn't comment at all on how fucked up it is when a cop brazenly bends the system to his advantage. If anything, it has sympathy for the detectives breaking the rules.

 

Even if I stop looking at the movie with modern lenses and try to enjoy it as a simple throwback, I didn't really care for the movie very much. Denzel plays a former L.A. detective who burned out and moved out of L.A. to be a small-town cop. A clerical task takes him back to L.A. for a few days where he gets involved with investigating a serial killer case that Rami Malek is the lead detective on. They soon zero in on Jared Leto, playing the most suspicious person ever, as the lead suspect. It's then a game of wits to see who can outsmart whom. Denzel can play this role well in his sleep - best in the business, with a haunted past, and is his own worst enemy. He's the only main performance I came close to liking. That said, I think his character would make more sense if he played the role in 1993. The man is 66 now. Even if we cross the customary 15 years off the age of any of his roles, he still feels too old for this. Maybe that's just me though. Rami Malek is a very specific on-screen presence. He doesn't play decency or natural well. He can be cocky but not an everyman, which is his role in this unfortunately. He's a hotshot detective with a normal family life, and I swear I saw the envy in Malek's eyes every time he shared a scene with Jared Leto. Leto is fine, I guess. Personally, I'm a little tired of Leto going big and weird in performances. I am so confused about how he got SAG and Golden Globe nominations for this performance. That performance in this movie has no business getting any awards attention.

 

I don't think I hated the movie. It feels like a waste of three Oscar winners, but that's true of a lot of movies. I wish the crime and investigation was a little more interesting in the movie. I found the conclusion intentionally deflating, which would've been fine had it been making a point that felt more relevant.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Quick Reaction: A Man For All Seasons

I'm so close to completing my mini-project of watching all the Best Picture winners. I now only have one left, 1967's Oliver! I never would've guessed my last two Best Picture winners would be from the 60s and not the 40s. I mean, it wouldn't've been my first, second, or third guess. Probably my fourth. Sigh. You know what I mean. Here we are though. This belongs to a forgettable group of winners in the 60s. Coming off the epics and musicals, right before New Hollywood took hold, there was a mini-era of these British Best Picture winners like, Tom Jones and Oliver!

 

Most of the movie is pretty dull. Just a dramatized history lesson of Henry VIII breaking England from the Catholic church that sidesteps some of the more salacious aspects. It didn't grab my attention much until the trial at the very end, which I quite liked. In fact, I wouldn't mind if a few clips from that came as part of the standard user agreement on Twitter to help remind people about free speech and whatnot. I was impressed with Paul Scofield's ability to stay dignified throughout, which made the few times he broke, like when his family was being taken away from his prison cell, hit harder. Of the Best Picture nominees I've seen from that year, I can definitely see how this won over the less serious The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming and the more scandalous Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Dig

Premise: Just before WWII, a British woman hires an archeologist to excavate a mound on her property that turns out to be a significant historical site.

 

This movie falls under a category of movies that I need a pithy name for: movies that aren't as interesting as the Wikipedia page of the actual events. And even that description feels a little off. The Sutton Hoo site is pretty remarkable. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that this woman just had all these mounds in her back yard and decided to have someone dig it up for artifacts. The only time something remotely close to that happens in America is when a house gets haunted for being built on top of an Indian Burial ground. This whole thing seems crazy to me. "Yep. Just set up the playground next to the mound over there. It probably just has Viking artifacts in it." There's a great Wikipedia page on Sutton Hoo with charts and a full history. You know I had it pulled up while I was watching the movie, maybe tuning out of the movie more than I should've.

 

At the end of the day, this is a movie about a slow, methodic dig. It's not very interesting on its own, so they have to add some flavor*. I doubt the actual dig was as interesting as the movie makes it. The health problems of Edith Pretty (Carey Mulligan), who owns the land probably weren't that sever at that point. I assume there was a real Peggy Piggott (Lily James) but I doubt her involvement was quite as filled with sexism, romance, and closeted husbands coming to a head at that moment. I do sort of believe Basil Brown's (Ralph Fiennes) involvement was a lot like that: getting edged out by the British Museum and people with PHDs. The movie does everything it can to stay interesting, but at the end of the day, it's still a movie about a dig.

 

*They, in this case means both the filmmakers and the author of the novel this is based on.

 

I didn't watch the movie because I was enticed by the premise though. I didn't even read the Netflix blurb about it before I watched it. I just knew it had Carey Mulligan, Ralph Fiennes, and Lily James in it. And hey, Fiennes is great and understated in this role. I like seeing him play a character who gets a little dirty. Carey Mulligan is good, even though it's pretty clear she's meant to play someone a bit older than she is. It's not Lily James' best role ever, but she shows up right when the movie needs a little more going on. The movie also looks pretty good too. It manages to capture how rainy England can be without coating the country in damp fog the whole time. The English countryside looks nice most of the time. A pretty movie with good actors that's a little dull in places is good in my book. Besides, it led me to a good Wikipedia read.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Minari

Formula: Little Miss Sunshine - the Road trip + Farming

 

I am out of practice on these proper Movie Reactions. This will be only my fourth one in a year. I've done hundreds of Delayed and Quick Reactions in that time, but I like these to be a bit more thorough and structured. Hopefully I'm not too rusty.

 

I wonder if Minari is actually going to be hurt by being an awards contender. I know I went in with some lofty expectations because of it. I've been hearing for months about how good Stephen Yeun is in it. The Twitter fury over the Golden Globes calling it a Foreign Language film had people fiercely performative about how it's a very American movie that isn't being shown proper respect*. So, I was weirdly disappointed when the movie I got was "only" a nice Sundance family drama. It feels as much like the mostly ignored The Florida Project as the Oscar hit Little Miss Sunshine.

 

*Side Note: I get the initial irritation about how the Globes nominated Minari, but didn't we already go through this 2 years ago with The Farewell? It's a strange rule, but it is consistent. And I think it reveals as many biases in the complainers as in the HFPA. With such a small voting body, is there really that much danger of it being "othered" in the acting and directing categories by the voters? That's not rhetorical. I'm actually curious.

 

The film is about the Yi family and set in the mid-80s. The parents, Jacob (Stephen Yeun) and Monica (Yeri Han), are Korea immigrants with two entirely American children. The youngest, David (Alan S, Kim) has a heart murmur that makes his mother especially worry. Jacob dreams of becoming a farmer of Korean vegetables and moves the family from California, where they were pretty comfortable, to 50 acres of undeveloped land in Arkansas. Monica is not very excited about this and worries about the distance from the hospital (Same, girl. Same). Eventually, they invite Monica's mother (Yuh-jung Youn) over from Korea to help watch the kids. The plot is a mix of Jacob struggling to make the farm work, the strain of Jacob and Monica's marriage, and David bonding with his grandmother. There's even room for a little quirk. Darryl Cox shows up as an eccentric neighbor who helps the family out and the grandmother, as David likes to point out often, doesn't act like other grandmas, with her love of professional wrestling and indifference about swearing in front of the kids.

 

The plot has a lot of fairly familiar family and professional drama, so the film is really propped up by the strong performances. It's hard not to root for Stephen Yeun's Jacob. He's a hard-working and loving father, even though he's stern and bullish at times. Yeri Han avoids being the nagging wife, despite her role largely being about disapproving of Jacob's decisions. Alan S. Kim is only about 7, so I mostly have to credit him for being a cute kid who isn't distractingly precocious. I was more impressed with Noel Cho as the older child, Anne. She's the one who quietly keeps the trains running on time in the family, looking out for her brother while her parents are busy working hard. The main reason I compare this film to Little Miss Sunshine is because Yuh-jung Youn reminds me so much of the Alan Arkin role in that movie. She gets most of the funny and sweetest moments in the film. I'd say she's right behind Yeun in the Oscar discussion for the film as the breakout supporting character.

 

I'm still digesting the end of the movie. It isn't as wholly satisfying as I wanted. It smartly leaves something to the imagination and suggests more than it confirms. I suspect I'll like it more with some time. A few key relationships felt too unresolved, and there's a climactic last twist of the knife that's just plain cruel. Overall though, this movie is a nice take on the American dream. It's hard to think of another movie that's quite like it. I mean, it's mostly in Korean yet it's about a farmer wearing a red baseball camp who is also an immigrant. It's certainly not a lie to say that it's a film about the American dream. It just isn't the American dream exactly as we see it in other films.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

 

Delayed Reaction: Judas and the Black Messiah

Premise: After getting arrested for a crime, William O'Neal becomes an informant for the FBI, infiltrating the Chicago Black Panther party, led by their charismatic chairman Fred Hampton.

 

I guess this is one of those movies. You know, the kind that I liked well enough, then it gets such rapturous critical praise that I become defensive. It's not a reaction I like about myself. A better adjusted person would think, I'm glad they liked it too. Instead, I'm suspicious. This praise feels performative by others or is there something I missed? So, then when I run into people who love it, my response somehow morphs into "it's not that good", and suddenly, all I'm ever talking about are the things I didn't like about what I thought was a pretty decent movie.

 

This movie is based on a true story. William O'Neal really was an informant for the FBI and Fred Hampton really was charismatic as hell. The history of all this isn't a secret, so I feel fine saying that it ends with the wrongful death of Fred Hampton by the police thanks to the FBI. It's a pretty infuriating but sadly familiar story.

 

I think that's what capped my appreciation of the movie some. I've seen it all before. There are plenty of movies about guys who go undercover in an organization and start to believe in that group more than the people they are informing for. It's not shocking to know that the FBI was undermining black leaders of that era. Frank Hampton is one in a generation of black leaders who were killed. He is one of the ones who was killed most directly by law enforcement, so there's that. I don't want to minimize the injustice, but as a movie, it didn't stand out that much from similar movies I've seen.

 

And, to be clear, I say all that to explain why I didn't LOVE the movie. I liked it. I think it's well made. The cast is bonkers. Daniel Kaluuya is rightfully in the hunt for a Supporting Actor Oscar. He's tremendous. It's easy to see how that character could rise up the ranks so quickly*. Lakeith Stanfield plays William O'Neal's conflict well. He falls for the Black Panthers but never fully. He keeps a mental distance that's interesting to watch. Jesse Plemons is almost too easy as the FBI handler who seems "aww shucks" but is actually morally compromised. Matin Sheen certainly isn't the worst J. Edgar Hoover I've seen. I like seeing that people other than David Simon are finding Dominique Fishback for roles. Overall, the movie is a solid crime thriller, really carried by the performances and some "based on real events" fury.

 

*Fred Hampton died at 21 years old. Imagine if there really was an actor out there at 21 with that much presence.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Quick Reaction: Amy Tan: Unintended Memoir

I'm running on fumes here and this late into Sundance, my notes were shit. So, brass tax. Despite what the title suggests, this is a pretty straightforward documentary. It's a profile of Amy Tan, who is most famous for writing The Joy Luck Club. Since aspects of her life were pulled for that book, the doc visually references the film a lot to point out connections. It goes through her entire bibliography though as well as other extracurriculars like the author band she's in. I don't think Amy Tan is the most interesting subject for a documentary (hardly the worst either). There are several parts of this that are painfully boring but no doubt kept in to appease Tan. Like, I don't care about her hobbies. Seriously, just go and watch The Joy Luck Club again. You pull enough important kernels of Tan's history from that and it's much more enjoyable to watch.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: We're All Going to the World's Fair

Premise: A teenager takes a spooky internet challenge and documents the effects it has on her while an interested third party attempts to help.

 

Yes. Finally, a found footage Sundance horror movie. Much of my excitement about this year's Sundance being online was for the Midnight movies. Those are the extreme horror, comedy, or violent movies. I figured, with Sundance being all about the independent (see: cheap) movies, I was good for at least one found footage horror movie. It only took me 44 movies to get to it.

There isn't much new ground to traverse with found footage, but We're All Going to the World's Fair makes a go at it. It begins with a teen girl, Casey (Anna Cobb), taking something called the "World's Fair Challenge". It's a creepypasta ritual in which she recites a couple things and gives a couple drops of blood [to her computer, I guess], then weird things are supposed to happen to her. The movie continues with more videos she posts in which weird things do start happening. It also shows other videos of people reporting odd symptoms from the challenge. Things get real when a concerned stranger decides to try and help her before it's too late.

 

Creepypasta is underexplored in horror at this point. It's a phenomenon still for people slightly under the movie-making age. I'm sure if I was a decade younger, I'd've had a creepypasta phase. For those unfamiliar with the term, creepypasta refers to scary stories that internet users attempt to make look real. It's often a community effort, like Slenderman. Hundreds of people latched onto the Slenderman story so that now there's a collection of videos and stories about Slenderman from otherwise unconnected sources. It's possible for an unsuspecting person to stumble onto Slenderman videos now and think it's real until a quick Wikipedia search reveals that it's a community myth. The World's Fair Challenge is another one of these. Artifice is built into the film. I know none of it is real since I'm watching a horror movie, but within the movie, how much of it is real? The movie lets the audience decide for themselves for much of the movie.

 

The movie isn't wholly effective. The business with the third party is a bust by the end that takes all the fun out of it. In fact, the last 5 or so minutes should just be wiped from the movie if the first focus is to be a scary movie. Perhaps I'm desensitized, but I thought this could gone a lot more nuts. Really, my only complaint other than the end is that I wanted even more.

 

On a filmmaking level the movie looked good. The found-footage rules were clear. Anna Cobb held my attention well, despite doing every scene alone. This all looks just like what I could find down a YouTube rabbit hole. I even think there's room to explore this idea further. Franchise?

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Quick Reaction: The Blazing World

This is a stylish little horror movie that feels more like a try out for future work than a fully realized passion project. Carlson Young's Alice in Wonderland-esque story has some striking visuals. The world design reminded me of Guillermo del Toro and the use of color had some Dario Argento in it. Maybe some Tarsem Singh in there to. It's a pastiche of sorts, really. In it, Margaret (Young, also in the lead role) follows an old man into a hole looking for a way to bring back her sister who died when they were children. The hole takes her to a mysterious mirror world where she has to gather 4 keys.

 

I feel bad, because I can tell a lot of thought went into all the tasks she has to complete. I'm positive there's a bunch of symbolism to the construction of the world and characters that I just didn't pick up on. My mind was admittedly mush at that point in my Sundance experience. Yet, even if this was a Day One movie, I wouldn't've been intrigued enough to figure it all out. This is a great calling card for Carlson Young moving forward, especially since she successfully adapted this idea from her own short film. I mean, she's only 30 and still works primarily as an actress. I think she's doing pretty well for herself.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Prisoners of Ghostland

Premise: An imprisoned hero is tasked with finding the governor's daughter in a post-apocalyptic (or just super weird and stylized) world.

 

It's a shame more movies don't take a LEGO Movie approach to world-building. Embrace not the absurdity but the creativity. Certain filmmakers (many East Asian for whatever reason) are good at this. They pull indiscriminately from different genres to build a world that doesn't make any logical sense but is scattered yet up a piece. Prisoners of Ghostland is part western, part feudal japan, part fantasy, part Mad Max. The ghostland production design is basically "what if we made cool stuff out of a junkyard".

 

It's barely worth it to describe what the movie is about, since it's all pretty nuts. Nic Cage went to jail years ago for a bank robbery gone wrong. The governor of his region/town (I'm not sure. The civic structure of this world isn't that mapped out) gives him up to five days to find and return his missing daughter in exchange for freedom. To keep Cage in line until then, he straps him into a suit with explosives on the neck (goes off if he tries to take it off), arms (explode if he hurts his daughter), and crotch (if he gets aroused by the daughter). Yeah - it's that kind of movie. The daughter has disappeared in a wasteland haunted by the ghosts of an accident with a prisoner transport or something. Honestly, that's about where the movie lost me and I turned my brain off. It's a lot.

 

This isn't a perfect movie by any means. It's pretty scattered. It's aware enough to know how much of it is funny, but I think it could've gone even heavier on that. This feels odd to say, but I think Nic Cage could've even hammed it up more. I was really disappointed that there wasn't more for Sofia Boutella to do. This is the perfect kind of movie to take advantage of how well she moves. That's still her greatest strength. To examine this movie too closely is to miss the point. So, I think the only acceptable criticism of it is "I wish it was even wilder".

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The World to Come

Premise: In the mid-1800s, two women in a remote frontier community fall in love.

 

Look, I'm as big a fan of lesbian period pieces starring attractive actresses as the next guy. Let's throw in a few more Brokeback Mountains too for equity. Even past my base-level enjoyment of this kind of movie though, there are things about The World to Come that I quite liked. It's hard to be mad about this cast. Katherine Waterston and Vanessa Kirby are great always. Like, I'm trying to think of a movie with either of them that they didn't make better. I've got nothing. It's funny seeing Casey Affleck and Christopher Abbott as the husbands, because I feel like Abbott has gotten more than a few roles that casting agents have described as "a younger Casey Affleck". I feel like someone raided a frontier museum for the props. I enjoyed how often Waterston or Affleck would start using a random device I've never seen before for a household task.

 

On a broader level, I appreciated what the movie was trying to go for. You really don't hear many women's stories from that era. The movie captures how stifling it must've been. I'm not sure how common it was for wives to fall in love, but I think there's truth to the excitement Waterston would've felt to simply have a friend in the middle of all that isolation.

 

Personally, I did not care for this movie though. Most of it comes down to the language of the movie. It all sounds like someone reading from a novel. The dialogue spoken is the kind that reads beautifully but sounds awkward when actually spoken. The reliance on Waterston's narration gets in the way of actually adapting the novel to film. I would've liked to see the version of this movie with 10% more dialogue and no narration. Find more cinematic ways to express what Waterston is feeling. Otherwise, why not just read the book? It makes sense that the screenplay was cowritten by the author of the novel. This movie plays like it was written by someone more accustomed to the page than the screen. Perhaps if I liked the language of the dialogue and narration more, I wouldn't've minded as much, but it felt ostentatious to me.

 

The performances mostly keep this watchable. Waterston and Kirby are great on screen together. The sexual tension of those earlier scenes is scorching. Casey Affleck does some good stare-down acting while Waterston is writing in her journal [again]. I wish the movie would've let the performances speak for themselves more often.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Quick Reaction: All Light, Everywhere

It's interesting how my two least favorite movies from this year's Sundance are the two most similar: this and A Glitch in the Matrix. They are both documentaries about technology encroaching on the human experience. The reason I dislike them are pretty different though. A Glitch in the Matrix made a poor but clear case for its topic. Frankly, I'm not sure what the point of All, Light Everywhere is. It's sort of about surveillance, or maybe the danger of man's desire to observe more and draw conclusions from those observations.

 

It's hard to even set the movie up. Like a lot of documentaries, it bounces between a couple different narratives. There's an extended tour of the company that makes body cams and tasers for police. There's a police training class learning about their body cams. There's a man trying to sell Baltimore on using his satellite observation technology which can watch over the city in real time. Occasionally, it gives a history lesson on early telescopes, photograph technology, or criminal cataloging. The core ideas that the movie is examining are interesting. There are brief stretches that really captured my attention, like when it explains how body cams are developed not to be perfect but to mimic the human eye (to reflect what the police see in a situation) or the community meeting about the pros and cons of the "god's eye view" camera system over Baltimore. It nicely slow plays where the history lesson about criminal cataloging leads to. I hated nearly everything about the presentation and editing though. It felt scattered, like they weren't done with the final cut. This was amplified by an epilogue with clips of something else that they spent a lot of time filming but decided to cut since it didn't fit with the rest. So, why tell us about it at all? I don't care about this thing that has nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

I wish I had more nuanced thoughts about why I didn't like this movie. It just didn't work.

 

Verdict: Strongly Don't Recommend