Delayed Reaction: The Zookeeper’s Wife

Premise: During WWII, a zoo in Warsaw becomes a secret safe haven for Jews escaping German persecution.

 

Dammit. The beats of a decent WWII movie are so simple and easy to pull off that I can never be done with the genre. I want to be. I’ve seen enough WWII movies for 2 lifetimes already. The mix of timing (right as the film industry really set its roots in society), the scope (so many countries were involved, directly and indirectly), and the simple good/evil divide (Nazis are easy to root against; the Holocaust is easy to denounce) means there are always new stories and ways to invest an audience. So, I want to roll my eyes and say “ugh, another one?” when I realize The Zookeeper’s Wife is a WWII movie. However, I watch it and it’s pretty decent. I don’t think there’s any better source of C+/B- movies than WWII. Movies just good enough to hold my interest while still making me annoyed by how many there are.

 

So, yeah, The Zookeeper’s Wife of pretty good. I like Jessica Chastain in it. In the last 12 years, I don’t think there’s anyone with more movies that you could see how they could’ve been an Oscar nomination. That’s not to say she’s been “snubbed” on the most movies. I don’t think The Zookeeper’s Wife deserved to be in an awards discussion, but I could see how things could’ve broken so that it was. The right film festival could’ve picked it up. Focus Features’ campaign slate could’ve fallen a different way. She’s got a lot of these movies. Take Shelter, The Tree of Life, Lawless, The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby, Interstellar, A Most Violent Year, Crimson Peak, Miss Julie, Molly’s Game, The Forgiven, Woman Walks Ahead.

 

You have Jessica Chastain, reliable as ever. Casting Daniel Bruhl as the villainous Nazi officer is on the nose, which is just another way of saying “he’s cast well, but they didn’t find him first”. I’m now more curious to see Netflix’s Unorthodox after how much Shia Haas stood out in this.

As with most WWII movies, it starts with a bang and ends with a fizzle. The German bombing on Warsaw, destroying the zoo, is the most exciting sequence in the movie. The most intriguing part is seeing them develop their system of rescuing and hiding Jewish people. The rest of the movie becomes about maintaining it. There’s some tension in that, but it only goes so far.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: A Week Away

Premise: A musical about campers at a Christian camp.

 

It’s nice to be reminded that the Netflix algorithm is fallible*. This is the definition of a Saturday morning movie for me. I’m never using that time for a movie I’m anticipating. It’s my “Fuck it. Let’s give it a try.” spot. I like to try out movies that don’t seem super appealing but could surprise me. A lot of the time, I look for the first halfway decent suggestion on the Netflix page. And, in the algorithm’s defense, I do think I added this to my watchlist at some point when it popped up. That’s not saying much. My watchlist and long and varied.

 

*OK, I never needed any reminding of that.

 

Anyway, this movie isn’t great. I appreciate the attempt at a musical but the songs were pretty bad. Really poor and/or lazy lyrics. Very few hooks. And it didn’t commit enough to the idea. There were few enough songs that the idea of not making it a musical must’ve still been on the table late. And the Christ camp angle isn’t appealing to me. I’m very atheist but I like to think I’m generous about programming with a religious bent. Writing an interesting religious character on a show is still one of the quickest ways to get acclaim from me. Where religious movies tend to lose me is the refusal to have any sharp edges. No one in this movie is nasty. The bad boy character is written like the writer has never even gotten a speeding ticket. He shows up at the camp ready made for reform. I never bought him as someone who would get in trouble.

 

I’m also not stupid. This is a TV-PG movie clearly aimed at kids, probably even younger than preteens. Plenty of movies over the years have proven though that being for kids doesn’t mean a movie has to be bad. Most of the issues with the movie really aren’t with content. Better songs. More real conflict. Shade characters better. The young cast isn’t even that bad. Kevin Quinn comes from the Disney Channel factory. Bailee Madison has a shockingly long filmography for her age. The token adults, Sherri Shepherd and David Koechner, certainly try to inject some life into this.

 

Verdict: Strongly Don’t Recommend

Movie Reaction: Sonic the Hedgehog 2

Formula: Sonic the Hedgehog + more characters

 

I have very little to say about both Sonic the Hedgehog the character or this movie. I didn’t grow up on Sonic. I had a friend or two with a Sega Genesis growing up, and I would occasionally play a Sonic game for a few minutes. That’s about it. In addition to a lack of nostalgic affection for the character, I’m also pretty checked out of video games in general, and I’m a not a child under 13. In other words, there’s not a lot targeting me for this movie.

 

It feels too soon for there to be another Sonic the Hedgehog movie. That’s due to a combination of factors. It’s one of my last pre-pandemic memories, and it’s easy to forget that COVID has been a threat/nuisance for over 2 years now. The first Sonic film also had a lengthy post-production to correct the character design. That left a lot of time to prepare for a sequel before the first was even released.

 

On paper, I’d say Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is everything it needs to be. With Sonic’s place in the “real” world established, this installment can lean more heavily into the video game elements. Enter Tails and Knuckles: the two most famous franchise characters left out of the first movie. As enjoyable as James Marsden, Tika Sumpter, and Natasha Rothwell are, they don’t have as much to do in this movie. It’s all about Sonic and Tails vs. Knuckles and Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey). They are all fighting for some kind of all-powerful emerald. You know, something to fight over. That’s all that matters.

 

Ben Schwartz remains a delight as the voice of Sonic. Idris Elba is appropriate as the voice of Knuckles. I like that they got a professional voice actor in Colleen O’Shaughnessy to voice Tails. I get that having a familiar face to do the interview circuit is nice, but getting O’Shaughnessy at least gives the appearance of search for the best voice and not the most famous face. All the human actors are game for whatever. Whenever Carrey takes a role like this, it feels like he’s unleashing years of stored energy that he’s held in since The Truman Show. It’s nice to see.

 

I don’t know. It’s a kid’s movie. It’s very targeted to younger audiences. There’s a little humor meant for the adults in the room and it touches on some larger thematic points. But ultimately, I could feel the movie not trying to speak to me. And that’s OK. It’s just why I’m so tepid on the movie overall. Since I don’t have much in terms of nostalgia or franchise knowledge, I couldn’t use that as an in either. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is a perfectly fine movie. I’m happy they are doing this franchise and doing it pretty well. It’s as good as it needs to be. It’s funny, not hilarious. The action is good but it’s probably not winning the director a Marvel or John Wick movie. The emotion is present but not undeniable. The performances are delightful but no one is raising any eyebrows.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don’t Recommend

Movie Reaction: AmbuLAnce

Formula: Speed + Heat

 

Sorry, I forgot to use the full title: AmbuLAnce or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bay.

 

I’ve been a defender of Michael Bay for a while. I don’t pretend he’s secretly one of our greatest filmmakers or anything, but I see the value of what he provides. He’s a thematically uncomplicated filmmaker who happily embraces what many credit as the death of cinema. There’s art in the ability to entertain though. If I need someone to make a movie with explosions, Bay gets my first call. We can absolutely make fun of his belief that anything that moves is made out of C4, his compliance with studio requests to add product placement, and his cheesy sense of humor. I hated some of those late Transformers movies as much as anyone. I also unironically love the first one. Pain & Gain is silly and fun. Armageddon is hokey and sincere in a weirdly resilient way. I like to joke that everyone has one Michael Bay movie they swear by. Over time, I’ve come to realize that the biggest problem with Michael Bay movies is how often people sit down to watch them not accepting that they are about to watch a Michael Bay movie. No, it’s not going to be as disciplined as Christopher Nolan or as coordinated as George Miller. The sooner we let go and learn to love it, the better.

 

It’s easy to imagine 20 years for now AmbuLAnce being the definitive Michael Bay movie. Not the most successful. Not the most influential. What I mean is it can be the one that you can show anyone and say “This is the good and the bad of the Michael Bay experience”. The plot is barely thrown together. Quickly, it establishes Yahya Abdul-Mateen as an army vet desperate for money to pay for surgery for his wife. I’m not even sure what she’s sick with. He goes to his adopted brother played by Jake Gyllenhaal who ropes him into a bank heist he happens to be doing that day. We don’t even see the most of the bank heist. It quickly moves to the heist falling apart and turning into a shootout. It’s sweaty how they get to the actual ambulance part of it. There’s no denying that. However, it’s exciting getting there and exciting once it is there.

This is a frenetic movie. Bay and Directory of Photography Roberto De Angelis aggressively keep the camera moving. Aggressively! Bay uses drone shots like he’s a 12-year-old who just got one for Christmas. Two characters can’t even talk to each other without the camera doing a circle around them. I don’t think this was an accident either. This movie is meant to stress and exhaust you. The camera is in movement even before the plot is. It’s antsy to get to the action, and when the action starts, it’s hesitant to let up. I’m not here to say what Bay can and can’t do. Maybe he isn’t capable of finding the tension in stillness. But in AmbuLAnce, the unrelenting movement is a choice he’s made, and it works for the movie. By the end, I was exhausted. The movie does eventually back itself into a corner where maybe a cleverer screenplay didn’t have to, but that’s sort of the point. I think it’s inarguable that Bay met his level of ambition with this one. Honestly, it’s incredible when you think about his budget. This allegedly cost $40 million, but with the cast, explosions, locations, and scale I would’ve guessed well over $100 million. Realizing that afterwards really impressed me.

 

This is a movie full of Michael Bay characters. No one is all that interesting. I never really bought the bond between Abdul-Mateen and Gyllenhaal as adopted brothers. Eliza Gonzales as the paramedic trapped in the ambulance with them and an injured cop felt like they just slapped the Megan Fox in Transformers template onto her. Supporting characters like Garrett Dillahunt and Keir O’Donnell feel similarly templated. I kind of like how most of the attempt at banter is sharper and meaner than expected. At this point, it feels like people join a Michael Bay movie as an experience to do at least once in their career. Earn a decent paycheck to deliver an OK performance while soaking in the large and busy production. I mean, Bay has been doing this successfully for a while without a history of exploding budgets or production overruns. He must be good at managing the madness.

 

This movie is absolutely silly. Most of the laughs in my theater were from people like me hitting a breakpoint from the audacity to deliver certain lines or story beats. I cannot convince someone with a cemented distaste for Bay to give this movie a chance. I get the reasons to dislike his movies, but if you’ve even found yourself even passively enjoying one of his movies, AmbuLAnce is worth seeing eventually. The best advice I can give is to ignore the title. It’s a “heist gone wrong” movie. As that, it delivers.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Everything Everywhere All At Once

Formula: Swiss Army Man + Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind + Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse + The Terminator

 

I've been doing these Reactions for a while now. If I had to come up with a mission statement, it's not to tell people what they should or shouldn't see. That aspect is nice, but really, I'm trying to figure out why I like things. And that answer is a lot simpler than I like to believe. When I think about most of my favorite movies, they say "life might suck, but make the best out of it". Stranger Than Fiction is about a man who finds out his life is out of his control, so he tries to make the most of it. About Time is about a guy with the power to travel through time who uses it to figure out how to live his life well enough not to need that power. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is about two people who know their story leads to heartbreak but would rather fight the inevitable than give up. I have many neuroses to unpack, but it doesn't take a trained professional to see that I want to get out of my own way and try to be happy. So, let's just say I just came out of a meaningful viewing experience.

 

It’s hard to explain what Everything Everywhere All At Once is about. A Chinese-American woman, Evelyn (Michelle Yeoh), has a somewhat underwhelming life. Her laundromat is failing. Her daughter (Stephanie Hsu) doesn’t really like her. Evelyn’s husband (Ke Huy Quan), unbeknownst to her, is seriously considering divorce. Her life isn’t what she imagined. However, one day she is pulled into a battle to save the multiverse. You see, Evelyn from a different universe discovered a way to travel to the other universes. Her own hubris fractured the multi-verse, and now everyone is left to pick up the pieces. The Evelyn in this universe they believe is the one to fix everything. And none of what I just said captures how incredibly weird it all is. They have technology that allows them to tap into skills from over universes ranging from kung fu to hot dog fingers. They have to preform odd tasks like eating chapstick to access these skills. And when one accesses these skills, they are technically living both existences at the same time. The most I can really do here is convince you that the core story is touching and poignant. Otherwise, I can only tell you to expect many, many weird flourishes throughout while never getting overwhelmed with exposition.

 

Ultimately, EEAaO (I’m done typing the full title) is about reaching your potential and seeing the best life available to you. I was definitely tearing up toward the end, and if I described what was on screen while I was doing that, I’d sound unwell. And it’s all accomplished by a group of really strong performances. Yeoh has earned the lion’s share of the praise so far, because she is great. It’s a performance that asks her to literally wear many hats. I love that Michelle Yeoh in her 50s is game for anything. I’m joining this “An Oscar Nomination for Michelle Yeoh” bandwagon as early as possible. She’s not alone though. Stephanie Hsu gives a star performance. She has so much swagger in some of the silliest costumes. It’s the kind of performance you aren’t sure anyone can give until they actually do it. It’s hard to make aggressive nihilism sympathetic. Ke Huy Quan…yes, Short Round from Temple of Doom. Data from The Goonies. A man with three acting credits in the 2000s. I don’t know what he’s been up to all this time, but he’s about to show up in a lot more movies if he wants. He becomes the beating heart of this movie. Then there’s Jamie Lee Curtis as the IRS auditor and more. She doesn’t have to go this hard in the movie, but god bless her for doing so.

 

The way this entire cast turn themselves over to the directors in this is so impressive. I saw the Daniels’ first film Swiss Army Man, and I wasn’t super impressed. It struck me as inspired weirdness in search of a story worth telling. They are filmmakers who need the full trust of their cast to do what they do. EEAaO keeps the weirdness of Swiss Army Man. In fact, it amps it up, but this time they found a story to match it. It reminded me a lot of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That’s a movie that couldn’t possibly work as well on the page as on the screen. It’s too cerebral and dependent on how it’s visualized. It’s easy to see how Eternal Sunshine could’ve been an impenetrable mess. The same goes with EEAaO. They master so many genres, weird ideas, and weirder visuals while never losing track of the story they want to tell. Most films, even ones I love, I could see how I could’ve come up with that. I can reverse-engineer them. Not EEAaO. This movie is truly unique in all the right ways.

 

I worry that I may be overpraising the movie. I can see someone not liking it. There’s a lot going on throughout. If you don’t gel with the humor, the movie can look like a complete mess. I’m sure there are some logic gaps in there that I wasn’t interested in finding. It definitely feels like this movie is moving into an overhyped stage where people going in will expect something transcendent. For me though, I came in with just the right amount of expectations to love the shit out of this crazy, overwhelming, slightly crude, inventive movie.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Morbius

Formula: Blade – Venom

 

Superhero movie discourse is getting more exhausting every year. We’re deep into this. They been around for decades. Even the MCU, which started the current era of the superhero movie, is 14 years in now. There are so many of these movies that it takes more and more to make them stand out. Naturally, people give the films shorter leashes and make faster judgments. The MCU delivers projects of consistent quality so often that the perfectly fine Eternals had a wave of criticism that led to it being the first Certified Rotten MCU movie. It wasn’t actually the worst MCU movie. When they all start to feel the same though, average starts to look bad. It reminds me of when I watched Must Love Dogs a few years ago. It’s a perfectly enjoyable RomCom that delivered exactly what I wanted. It’s 37% on RottenTomatoes, and the tone of the reviews were more exhaustion than disapproval. People were tired of RomComs, not disapproving of Must Love Dogs in particular. That’s happening more often with the superhero movies. This makes it especially hard to tell the difference between the dreadful ones and the unremarkable ones. At this point, for many, they yield the same gut response.

 

Morbius is not good. I wanted it to be good. After hearing about the bad reviews, my contrarian brain kicked in and wanted to have the dissenting review. I wanted to feel about it the way I did the Eternals, which I insist was a victim of MCU burnout. I’ll admit, Morbius did have some things working against it. I’m not crazy about Sony’s backdoor attempt at an extended Spider-Man-less Spider-Man universe. Jared Leto is an actor I have no affection for. Perhaps my contrarian brain wasn’t driving the bus as much as it could’ve been. Morbius just isn’t good though.

 

For those unfamiliar, it’s the story of Dr. Michael Morbius. He’s a brilliant scientist with a blood disease that has left him weak and on crutches for his whole life. His goal in life is to find a cure for him and others with diseases like his. He tries an experiment with bats. I forget the reason. Something vaguely science-y about bats drinking blood and being able to process it. Anyway, an experiment that he tries on himself goes wrong. He’s a vampire now. Well, kind of. He drinks blood now, and when he’s full-on blood, he’s super strong and has powers like flying and eco-location. Don’t think too hard about it. When he’s low on blood, he’s back to being weak. Also, he can lose control when he’s full vampire. He has a rich friend with the same disease as him. The movie needs a villain. I’ll let you do the math.

 

Look, some movies are bread movies and some are wine movies. Wine movies age well over time. The longer they sit with you, the more you appreciate them. Bread movies are fine at first but start to mold once you give them a few days. Morbius is a bread movie. Coming out of the theater, I was unimpressed but unfazed. I didn’t care for the movie but it was more “meh” than “yuck”. Any time I try and think about it though, the less I like it.

 

What’s tough about Morbius is that it’s hard to point to big things beyond Jared Leto. Most of the problems are a collection of details that build up. Leto isn’t great. He’s not very charismatic in this. And he can be charismatic. I may not love his roles in House of Gucci, The Little Things, or Suicide Squad, but charisma wasn’t the problem there. In Morbius, he’s just boring. The movie gives me no reason to want to follow this character around. This is a tough role to cast, but Leto in particular is a bad choice. He was 47 when they filmed this. He still looks early 30s though. He’s 11 years older than Matt Smith who already looks young for his age. Leto is the definition of good genes. It breaks my brain thinking about how this sickly character scared of dying really young has five years on the guy playing Doctor Strange.

 

As I said, it’s a collection of petty details that all add up. Dr. Morbius turns down a Nobel prize because he says his work isn’t done. That’s a weird detail. He created artificial blood that saved millions. Take the prize and keep working. It’s not like the Nobel Prize requires retirement. I get that this is a PG-13 movie but they badly need a better way to have him drink blood than out of blood bags. It looks like he’s eagerly finishing a Capri Sun every time. Why do his blackouts only seem to happen at times that keep the screenplay most interesting? I’d love to know where Matt Smith’s character’s money came from. I assume it’s not family money, since he wouldn’t’ve been sent away to that hospital as a child if that was the case. It seems like he’s living a carefree existence as an adult though. And is “the Vampire Killer” really the best name they could come up with? It doesn’t feel cohesive as a thought through movie. “The Vampire Killer” really gets me for some reason. It’s so lazy. That’s a first draft name. It’s not even something they repeat later. It could’ve been cut out.

 

The supporting cast isn’t well used either. Matt Smith is too thinly written to be interesting. Perhaps right after Doctor Who, giving him a heel turn would’ve been remarkable, but I’ve seen it before in Last Night in Soho and Terminator Genisys. Adria Arjorna might supplant Rachel McAdams as the most underused Marvel love interest. I’ll be honest, I thought she was Eliza Gonzalez until the end credits. She and Leto have very little chemistry, professional or romantic. Jared Harris is in the movie. I fully believe they cast him because most people with expect him to turn into the villain by the end. The two agents investigating Morbius’ behavior are played by Tyrese Gibson and Al Madrigal who don’t work as a duo either. Their performances are in different movies.

 

It’s hard to find much in the movie that’s above average. I appreciate how these Sony movies are staying short. This and the Venoms have been under 2 hours. Until the closing credits, Morbius feels like a movie and not an installment. There’s a throwback feel to the movie. It felt more like the original X-Men or the Sam Rami Spider-Man than a modern MCU or DC movie. With a little more attention to detail, it’s easy to see how this could’ve been a pretty decent movie. Embracing Jared Leto’s desire to go big and weird would’ve made that character more interesting. Give Matt Smith a couple more alone scenes early to establish him better. Give Ariorna something to do. Commit to more of a vision: more banter, heighten everything, push up against an R-rating more with the darkness, camp it up, or anything else. As it is Morbius feels like it’s trying to offend no one and, in the process, rids itself of any identity.

 

Verdict: Strongly Don’t Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Lost City

Formula: Romancing the Stone * Tropic Thunder

 

I keep staring blankly at this Word doc, and I can’t come up with anything better than saying The Lost City is worse than the best versions of this movie (Romancing the Stone) and better than the mediocre versions of this movie (Snatched). It’s definitely closer to the mediocre than the great though.

 

It’s a sweaty premise for a movie. Loretta Sage (Sandra Bullock) is a famous romance novelist who lost her spark after her husband died five years ago. Alan (Channing Tatum) is the famous cover model for all her books, who embraces that job fully. While on a book tour, Loretta is kidnapped by a billionaire (Daniel Radcliffe) because she is the only person who can solve an ancient puzzle that leads to an ancient treasure. You see, Loretta began as an archeologist and academic with her husband and used that knowledge for her romance adventure books. Alan chases after Loretta despite being very ill-equipped, and zaniness ensues…It’s a dumb plot. It just is. No one involved is pretending otherwise. This a movie that really relies on the other elements than writing to prop it up.

 

I like the pairing of Bullock and Tatum. The age difference is less distracting than I would’ve thought. Bullock has always looked young. Tatum now in his 40s finally has enough lines to not look like a giant kid. I enjoy the pairing of an academic and a himbo. It plays to each of their strengths. I wish each character would’ve been fleshed out a little more though. I have little sense of how much of Bullock’s personality is the result of her husband’s death as opposed to something that’s always been part of her. The movie also likes Tatum far too early. I never got to be surprised that Bullock would eventually fall for him, because, other than being a little stupid, there was never much wrong with him. The movie is also afraid to admit that either of them are just excited for an adventure. I’m still confused why so much of this had to be against Bullock’s will. Like, how much would it change things if as soon as she arrived on the island, she fully embraced it but realized Radcliffe’s intentions were wrong?

 

I wish I had a better sense of how seriously this was trying to be an adventure movie. As a comedy-first movie, it’s missing a lot of flavoring. They don’t hit on the humor as hard as I’d like. Even the shock humor is couched in an amount of realism that steps on the punchlines (Brad Pitt: that’s all I’ll say about that). There’s a subplot of Da’Vine Joy Randolph as Bullock’s publisher trying to track Bullock down. I kept wanting it to be Matthew McConaughey in Tropic Thunder with the Tivo, stealing scenes. Those moments were fun, but not entertaining enough to make me glad they pulled away from the A-story. As an adventure movie, this is very hollow. There are many sets that look like sets. There’s nothing that says just because this is a comedy movie doesn’t mean we can’t go all out with the adventure.

 

I think back to the movies of this ilk that work, and it’s normally the characters and the direction that make them work. Romancing the Stone has Zemeckis directing, so whenever a proper action set piece is needed, he can deliver with something better than the movie needs. On the other end of it, Tropic Thunder works because the characters start off as so exaggerated. They eventually get the needed shading, but early on, they are joke machines for all the appearances they are putting on. The Lost City has trouble striking any balance. The Bullock/Tatum chemistry eventually got where it needed to, but they don’t start with an opposites attract setup that works. Two people who hate each other is great. One person who hates another person who they need is great. But, two people, both incompetent for this, one dislikes the other, the other likes the one. That’s doesn’t work. It just ends up being Bullock being mean to Tatum for very little reason while he happily takes it. I wanted more spark. I wanted more to laugh at. I wanted more adventure that made me pay attention. I got enough of each to keep this movie watchable – mostly enjoyable even – but not enough to really be a pleasure to watch.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don’t Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Outfit

Formula: Free Fire / Kingsman: The Secret Service

(The math is somewhat key to this formula. The excessive violence of both movies is cancelled out by the division, but the contained space and proper attire of each remains)

 

There’s an important distinction between one of my favorite types of movies and a type that can bother me. I’ll sometimes complain about movies adapted from plays that should’ve just been plays. There isn’t anything added to them by being on film. However, I tend to love when movies limit themselves to a confined space, which is often what play adaptations do. So, why does Fences annoy me but I love Free Fire? It mostly comes down to how cinematic the films are. Free Fire can’t be a play in the same form. Locke is just Tom Hardy in a car, but the reason so much of it works is the direction and his small actions in the car. It wouldn’t translate as a stage production*. This is important because The Outfit epitomizes this duality of preferences. It is a film the takes place within three rooms. People move in and out of it like a play. I actually still have trouble believing this isn’t an adaptation of a play. There are key aspects of blocking and detail that do make it specifically cinematic.

 

*All this doesn’t explain why I love 12 Angry Men and Glengarry Glen Ross. Maybe I just love watching middle-aged white guys argue in a room.

 

This Outfit takes place in a suit maker’s shop in 1956 Chicago. The cutter (not to be confused with a mere tailor) named Leonard (Mark Rylance) is happy with his simple existence making suits from early in the morning until late into the night. He has accepted his shop being used as a drop spot for the local mob, but he stays out of it entirely. The less he knows, the safer he is. The majority of the film takes place over one long night. After an ambush from a rival gang, a pair of gangsters interrupt Leonard late at night to help with a gunshot wound and to hide some valuable cargo. Over the next several hours, people walk in and out of the shop revealing secrets and suspicions until things all come to a head. I’ll spare you the details, since that’s some of the fun, but most of it centers around a greater crime syndicate known as the Outfit who loom over all the local crime factions.

 

The simplicity of the execution (linearly told, only in the three rooms) leaves a lot of room for the performances and writing. Rylance is the definition of sturdy in this. The whole time I could tell there’s more to him than he’s letting on, but he doesn’t give anything away before he means to. I’m always happy to see Zoey Deutch show up in something. This time, she’s Leonard’s secretary who dreams of something bigger than the neighborhood she’s lived in her whole life. She doesn’t 100% fit in a 1950s setting. Otherwise, she’s really good for the role. She’s sweet but also self-possessed. Simon Russell Beale is good as a local crime boss. Dylan O’Brien is solid as the boss’ son who is more ambitious than he is competent. And I liked Johnny Flynn as one of Beale’s lieutenants trying to leverage any advantage he can get. The film is a healthy mix of monologue and tense standoffs. I loved tracking the ways that Leonard found to get through the night. I appreciate the twists in the movie. It’s obvious within the first few minutes that this is the kind of movie that will have a few reveals. Most are pretty clever. A couple I still need to untangle, but I trust that they all make sense. There’s one bonkers development late that even still isn’t a huge surprise. I had a great time just going along for the ride.

 

The Outfit is an exercise in limitations, so it’s not the kind of film I expect people to peg as a top movie of the year. Rather, it’s the kind that they’ll remember as being pretty good but somehow lacking. I’ll probably do that too. It’s a film that lacks some ambition but pulls off what it aims to do incredibly well.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Movie Reaction: X

Formula: (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre – the chainsaw) ^ Boogie Nights

 

Ti West is one of the best horror filmmakers out there for a pretty simple reason. He likes horror. It helps that he’s also talented. In his films, he shows it by doing it. A lot of horror filmmakers today prove their love of the genre by getting a few steps ahead of it. They play on expectations or become self-aware. I love the Scream movies too, but they come from a very “Check out how many horror movies I’ve seen” place. Instead, Ti West makes the thing he likes. He likes the 80s supernatural horror movies, so he makes The House of the Devil, which fits right on the Blockbuster shelf with the rest of the films from that era. The Sacrament is a found footage horror movie that doesn’t try to be cleverer than previous films in the genre. The Innkeepers bleeds into being too knowing about horror, but counters that by making it almost mundane. It’s like those characters know they are in a horror movie but still have to work their day job. So, when I heard he had an A24 horror movie bringing things back to the Texas Chainsaw 70s, I couldn’t have been more on board.

 

X is exactly what it promises to be. It’s about a group of amateur adult filmmakers who rent a cabin on a remote farm property in rural Texas to film their “Debbie Does Dallas”. Of course, the farmer and his wife don’t much care for this, and eventually people start dying. It’s a pretty simple slasher in the way that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a very simple slasher. It leans into every trend and trope with the idea that if they approach it earnestly enough, the familiarity is a feature, not a bug. So this is unabashedly a boobs and blood kind of movie. It’s a little sophomoric, because so much horror really is overeager 12-year-olds trying to get a rise out of people however they can.

 

It’s a really fun cast. Mia Goth is the lead: a young woman determined to be a star who looks at this movie as her way to achieve that stardom. Goth is a great horror movie asset. She has a distinct look that almost seems unnatural at times. She can look as fresh faced or as world-weary as a scene needs. Martin Henderson is in the film as Goth’s much older producer fiancé. He’s pretty much channeling Kurt Russell, and it works. Jenna Ortega is sort of “the innocent” in the film but not with the implications you may expect. She’s already making quite a name for herself in horror despite still being a teenager. Brittany Snow and Kid Cudi really embrace their roles as other adult actors for the film. The member of the group who doesn’t make much of an impact is Owen Campbell as Ortega’s boyfriend and the director. Stephen Ure and Mia Goth (again) play the farmer and his wife under heaps of makeup and prosthetics. They are made to look unnaturally decrepit.

 

This movie is light on things to say. There’s definitely some sex positivity and a little religious scaremongering, but the movie stays pretty focused on entertaining. There are creative kills. The characters are big and fun. It has variety in the ways it’s creepy. Despite being A24, it not the kind of horror you’d associate with A24. It’s not overly arty like a Robert Eggers or Ari Aster film. It fully feels like a random tape you’d rent from a video store back in the day for a horror night. That’s exactly what West was going for, so it’s a resounding success, as far as I’m concerned.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Batman

Formula: (The LEGO Batman Movie – The LEGO Movie) * Joker

 

We have absolutely hit a Batman saturation point, but I’d argue that it seems even more saturated than it really is. We had 4 Batman movies from 1989 to 1997 with 3 different actors playing Bruce Wayne. The variety of Bruce Waynes and Forever looking like a soft reboot made the 90s feel like a barrage of new Batman visions being tried out. Even the quiet 8 years before Batman Begins had Catwoman with Halle Berry at the height of her fame generating headlines. I know I heard more about Catwoman than the box office would suggest. Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy was a cultural behemoth. Those films were actually 3-4 years apart, but it took that long to get people to shut up about the previous one. So no real breaks from Batman in that time. Another 4 years until Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice with Justice League the very next year. Oh, and a Suicide Squad cameo in between those. Again, those are movies that were more discussed than they were loved, so their pop cultural saturation is outsized. It’s been 5 years now since an onscreen Batman, but it feels like less with Joker in 2019. When you break it down, it’s not like Batman is showing up with MCU consistency. It’s just that every iteration has long legs and someone is always ready with the new take.

 

The Batman is a very specific take on Batman. I respect a lot about it. Matt Reeves leans as far into the Batman perception as possible. He’s heard every joke you’ve made about Batman soliloquizing about the night and vengeance. He’s aware of every quip you’ve made about how moody and dark the DC movies have been. And his decision is to lean all the way into those in hopes of coming out the other side. In other words, commit to it so hard that you have to respect the commitment. And I do. There is nothing cynical about this take on the Dark Knight. No apologies for being about Batman in a run-down Gotham, overrun by crime. All that said, I feel so bad for anyone not on this movie’s wavelength. This is an oppressive vision at times. There’s not a single well-lit room throughout the massive 3-hour runtime. I liked the movie and I was still exhausted by the end.

 

Of all the Batman movies out there (live-action), The Batman is the one most about Batman. That’s the best thing about it. Most of the films either spend a lot of time on Bruce Wayne or are most interested in the villain. The Batman is about the superhero. He’s part detective and part unstoppable force. It assumes we know the backstory by now. The film starts 2 years into the appearance of the Batman. His key relationships with Alfred (Andy Serkis) and Commissioner Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) have already been established. He’s a vigilante, but his relationship with Gordon lets Batman move pretty freely around the police. In this film, he is chasing down a madman who is killing prominent public figures and leaving clues about what he’ll do next. Batman (played by Robert Pattinson, by the way), eventually crosses paths with Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz) who is doing her own investigation into the disappearance of her friend. They become uneasy allies as they dig deeper into the Gotham criminal underworld and expose figures along the way.

 

I’m a big fan of all the casting in this movie. Pattinson has a great jawline for Batman and seems like he prefers the time spent in the mask. His Bruce Wayne is underwhelming, but that’s kind of the point. He plays Batman as a character and not a disguise. I really love Zoe Kravitz as a screen presence. She’s very good at carrying herself like she’d act the same with if there was no camera. She’s also tiny but believably able to beat people up. That’s a skill. I love Wright’s Lt. Gordon. Making him and Batman complete allies unlocked something I hadn’t seen in a while. Gary Oldman was always a bit guarded in the Nolan movies. Wright gets to carry himself like there’d be a movie here even without a Batman. Paul Dano as the Riddler will be your litmus test for the movie. He is extreme and you will either read the performance as terrifying or as camp. An ill-timed giggle in the theater can break the mood. I also must give props to the makeup department for the work on Colin Farrell as The Penguin. I saw his name in the end credits and had no idea where he was in that movie.

 

I complain about movie length a lot. Normally it’s because I think it means filmmakers are taking the easy way out. Instead of finding a way to do two things with one scene, they do two scenes. My issue with The Batman length is more similar to The Dark Knight’s length. It’s trying to fit too much movie in. The Dark Knight is a Joker movie, yet the last act is about Harvey Dent’s downfall, which could’ve filled an entire movie on its own. It’s a little less clean in The Batman, but the Riddler is already in Arkam Asylum before the extended climactic sequence. I’d get it if Matt Reeves was trying to wrap up a full story because he only has a single film. But this is a planned trilogy, and the end of this hints at a lot of future plans. It’s funny how so many TV showrunners talk about how their show is really a “10-hour movie” and so many filmmakers put together movies with the amount of plot in a limited series.

 

I know I keep going to this, but one more thing about the unrelenting darkness of this film. There are a lot of cool stunts and sequences that I wish I could’ve seen better. I don’t get the impression that the darkness was used to mask mediocre stunt work like in many other movies. There’s some impressive large-scale staging in this. I just can see it all. Part of that is the intent of course. Reeves has a lot of fun playing with focus and looking at scenes from unexpected or distant angles. It helps with the feeling the Batman could be watching around the corner at all times. I feel like he gets in his own way some. Sort of like when Nolan makes some sound mixing choice that may be accurate, but they make it impossible for people to hear. Reeves may be catching actual darkness, but it means I can’t see in a visual medium.

 

I’m very curious about where Reeve’s plans go after this. The Batman ends with Bruce reaching the realization that Batman should be more about hope than vengeance. There’s a really “the night is darkest before dawn” feeling to this movie. This is as dark as a Batman movie should go. Does this suggest than we’re in for a tonal shift moving forward? I wouldn’t mind that. I think The Batman is much more interesting as the dark Batman movie than the beginning of the dark Batman trilogy.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend