Sunday, September 24, 2023

Delayed Reaction: All the Beauty and the Bloodshed

Premise: A documentary about a famous artist who uses her clout to fight the Sackler family, who are behind much of the opioid crisis.


The best thing about All the Beauty and the Bloodshed is how well it mixes two stories. The first is the life story of photographer Nan Goldin. The second is the story of the opioid crisis largely caused by the Sackler family's release of Oxycontin, and their work to wash their name by donating money to the arts. The movie never goes too long without addressing one story or the other. I could've watched a documentary about either on their own and remained plenty interested.

I do struggle sometimes with movies about famous artists though. I don't know much about the modern art and photography world. It's hard for me to distinguish between a movie that is covering a significant artist from a movie made to inflate the importance of an artist. I really just rely on the fact that Nan Goldin has an interesting life and if she's good enough to be in some of the museum galleries she's protesting then she's probably a big deal.

Similarly, I don't know how impressive her group's protests really are. By the time this movie picks up, it's not like the Sacklers are beloved. The main point of their protests is just to remind people who the Sacklers are. One of the big moments in the movie is when they are throwing the pamphlets from all levels of that one museum (MoMA, I think). They talk about it like some transcendent experience; where they are shocked when additional people join in their cheering. It didn't seem that triumphant to me though. It doesn't take a lot of convincing to join in calling the Sacklers awful. Of course everyone in the museum will take their side. I'm a cynic about protests though. I'm always late to catching onto the moment when they go from hysterics to real calls to action.

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Shazam! Fury of the Gods

Formula: Shazam! * Black Adam


The nice thing about the mess DC has made of their extended universe building over the last decade is that a lot of fun movies have snuck through. Sure, the core movies like Batman v. Superman and Justice League have been underwhelming to all but the Snyder-stans. There have been great successes too, often on the margins. Wonder Woman fixed her underwhelming entrance in Dawn of Justice. Aquaman was a really entertaining ride. The two smaller Suicide Squad follow-ups (2020's Birds of Prey and 2021's The Suicide Squad) were a lot of fun without the weight of a masterplan to adhere to. Perhaps the best of them all was Shazam!, which found a lot of charm in its “Big with a superhero”, premise.

The sequel to Shazam! was always going to struggle some. It's harder to lean on the child in an adult body premise when the character is less new to it. And there's a sizeable difference between a 14–15-year-old and a 17–18-year-old in an adult body. Fury of the Gods does well by being able to show off how Billy's (Asher Angel) other siblings have adjusted to their powers. Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) is even more front-and-center this time too. And, as you'd expect from a bunch of kids suddenly gifted with superhero powers, their hero group has a reputation around the city as nuisances; likely to match every heroic deed with a colossal screw up. Anyway, they now have to take on a trio of goddess sisters played by Helen Mirren, Lucy Liu, and Rachel Zegler looking to restore the power taken from them and given to Shazam! The sisters don't all have the same idea of what to do with the powers once they get them back, but you better believe at least one wants to use them to destroy humanity.

This movie is packed with good performances and casting choices. I love the matching of Adam Brody as Jack Dylan Grazer's superhero form and there's plenty of both of them in here. Zachary Levi's brand of enthusiasm is perfect for a kid in a man's body performance. So much so that the movie does everything it can to sideline Asher Angel as Billy. Djimon Hounsou is really good at using his gravitas for silliness. I really liked seeing Rachel Zegler finally in something else after West Side Story. This isn't the greatest use of her, but it's better than nothing.

Unfortunately, this movie just isn't as fun as the first Shazam! He's not really an "end of the world" kind of hero. There are a few too many characters to balance, especially with three villains to differentiate. There's a running gag with Skittles that either works for you or it doesn't. And for me it really didn't. I don't want to bash the movie, because it's really no worse than a lot of the middling superhero movies that have come out lately. Like Quantumania though, it's unfortunate to watch a movie that lost track of what worked best about the previous movie.

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Scream VI

Formula: Scream 2 + (Scream 4 * Scream 5)


The Scream franchise has always been a snake eating its own tail. More specifically, it's about making sure it has eaten its tail just the right amount. It's a self-referential franchise by nature. But it does have to be responding to something or else it risks recycling the same points. I won't pretend to be a detailed historian of the franchise, but I know that personally, what I liked the most about Scream V was that that it felt like they waited long enough that there was a whole new generation of horror to comment on. It could interrogate both "elevated horror" and legacy horror franchises. With Scream VI coming out barely a year later, the question I had was if it would be a savvy commentary on rushed sequels or the very thing it was trying to comment on.

Also set about a year later, Scream VI moves the action to New York City where Sam (Melissa Barrera), Tara (Jenna Ortega), Mindy (Jasmin Savoy Brown), and Chad (Mason Gooding) have moved to for college or just as an attempt to get away from their notoriety back home. You see, the story of the Ghostface killer has made it to the true crime and conspiracy nuts. Many at-home investigators believe Sam is actually the murderer from the last film who then blamed Richie. You'll be shocked to discover there's a new killer now and they've made it to New York as well. As our protagonists try to survive this film, there is plenty of new examination of tropes, mostly from Mindy. The argument here is that the franchise has become bigger than any one character and no one is truly safe. Not even Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) or returning favorite from Scream IV, Kirby (Hayden Panettiere).

Scream VI mostly suffers from its inability to practice what it preaches. The mission statement of this installment is that all bets are off and all plot armor has been removed. No one is safe...except, it turns out everyone is safe. Look, the thing that really made Scream special back in 1996 was that Drew Barrymore died in the first scene. That was such a ballsy move. Scream VI doesn't risk that much. No one of consequence dies, even when they really should. After the similarly selective body count of Scream V, that was really disappointing. And it negates the confidence the movie is brimming with.

I mostly did enjoy the movie though. The opening death(s) is fairly memorable. Barrera and Ortega are great dual scream queens. The cast is full of the right kind of vaguely recognizable actors to fill the suspect pool with. It did keep me guessing until the end and found another new angle to inspire the killer. Scream movies are just at their best when they are as clever as they think they are. Scream VI falls just short of that. But, one nice thing about keeping a solid core intact is that I'll probably come back when they make another.

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Creed III

Formula: Rocky V * Creed


Creed III
is the 9th movie in the Rocky franchise. That doesn’t even consider the dozens of boxing movies inspired by the franchise. That’s rough considering there’s pretty much two ways a boxing movie can end: win or lose. The incredible thing about this franchise is how they keep finding variants of the same thing to do. There have been underdog stories, rematches, jingoism, mentoring, coping with legacy, getting out of shadows, redemption, and more. Every time I think they are out of new things to say in the franchise, they prove me wrong. So, unlike a lot of other new installments, I went into Creed III pretty sure they would find a new thing to say. The only question was what that would be.

If I was to classify Creed III in the franchise, it’s the one about the sins of the past coming to disrupt the present. The film starts with Adonis (Michael B. Jordan) retired from boxing after reaching the pinnacle of the sport. He hasn’t quite figured out his next step, but he’s fine with being a father and managing other boxers for now. Then one day, a figure from his past shows up. His old friend Dame (Jonathan Majors) has just been released from prison. Dame knew Adonis back when they were living in a group home. Dame was actually the one destined for boxing greatness with Adonis as his sidekick. One night, Adonis got a lucky break that Dame didn’t which sent him away for a long time. Now he’s ready to pick up where he left off, including righting wrongs that he believes were done to him.

It's a compelling idea: seeing what Adonis could’ve been had things broken the wrong way. Jonathan Majors steps into this with all the charisma that Jordan did back in Black Panther. He’s the right mix of proper motivation and wrong tactics. Majors plays with the chip on his shoulder well. Jordan plays Adonis with the weight of the world on him well. At the end of the day, a boxing movie needs a hero you can root for and an enemy who is his equal. Creed III succeeds on both accounts.

I do think the movie struggles to pick a lane when it comes to Dame though. At times, he’s perfectly reasonable in his motivations. At other times, he’s an evil mastermind. The entire section between Dame’s two fights doesn’t fit with the performance on either side of the fights. In particular, there’s a scene right after his first fight that feels like it was added just to remove all doubt that Adonis is the hero of this movie. I wish the character that Dame is after the climactic fight was the one we got for the whole movie. I think I might be in the minority about this. Majors is such a good actor that he cleans up any holes in the writing of that character arc.

As a first-time director, Jordan does well. Previous installments have built a template for him to work from. He tries a few new things though. While not perfectly executed, I like the idea of how he passes the middle rounds of the climactic fight without the need for a montage. I don’t know that this convinces me that I need to see what else he has in him as a director. This feels much more like him taking over his franchise fully. However, I remain committed to whatever he wants to do next. And, whenever Jordan wants to get jacked and put the gloves on again, I’ll be ready to enjoy it.

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Empire of Light

Premise: Two people working at a movie theater in 1981 southern England form a bond and navigate their assorted hardships.


Empire of Light
didn’t make enough of an impression on me to want to say much about it. It’s two ill-fitting stories put together inside the nostalgia of old movie houses in the 1980s. Both the story of Hilary (Olivia Colman) coping with her mental illness and Stephen (Michael Ward) dealing with racism is Southern England are clumsily inserted into the movie. You could name the scenes in the movie dealing with those stories even before you see it. Nothing revolutionary there, and it doesn’t go into either deep enough to really work.

Where the movie sings is the relationship between Hilary and Stephen. Even without the romantic aspect, I love stories of two unlikely friends positively impacting each others’ lives. And I love that it is all centered around the beautiful old movie house they work at. I get the sense that that is what Sam Mendes connected with the most in this. Even back in 1980, the theater had seen better days. The industry has always been a work in progress in that way.

The less Empire of Light tries to do, the better it is. Unfortunately, it tries to do a lot.

Verdict: Weakly Don’t Recommend

Sunday, July 30, 2023

Movie Reaction: Cocaine Bear

Formula: Scarface * The Bear


The problem with trying to critique the movie Cocaine Bear is that it's called Cocaine Bear. For example, here's a sample discussion of what would happen:

Me: I don't know that Cocaine Bear totally works.

Cocaine Bear Apologist: Was there a bear in it?

Me: Of course.

CBA: Did it do cocaine.

Me: Yes, an incredible amount.

CBA: Then what's your problem?

See what I mean? An immediate shut down. This really is one of those movies that you make up your mind on before ever stepping into the theater.

So far, I'm a big fan of Elizabeth Banks as a director. Pitch Perfect 2 was a solid follow-up to the original. Charlie's Angels (2019) is a favorite of mine from the last few years. Now Cocaine Bear. The best way I can describe her overarching approach is that she goes hard. That's exactly what Cocaine Bear needs.

There is actually a plot to Cocaine Bear. A giant stash of cocaine that was thrown from a plane lands in a state part in Georgia. A bear eats some which makes her incredibly violent. So, she goes around killing everyone she sees while also searching for more cocaine to eat. That stuff is addictive. There are some human stories too. A mom looking for her daughter. Some drug dealers trying to find the stash. A detective trying to track down the drug dealers. The main attraction is the cocaine bear antics though. The human stories are just there to give this some kind of spine. The main focus is the cocaine bear terrorizing people and doing copious amounts of cocaine.

They assemble a surprisingly strong cast for this. Either Elizabeth Banks has a lot of friends or a lot of people thought the title alone sounded stupid enough to work. Regardless, this has Keri Russell, Alden Ehrenreich, O'Shea Jackson Jr., Ray Liotta, Isiah Whitlock Jr., and several others. And they are all uniformly OK. All the performances are pitched to being in a movie called Cocaine Bear. It would've been nice for someone to give more than the movie deserved, but it's understandable that no one does.

The movie is super comically violent. There are a number of good gags. There are some that don't quite work. The joy of this movie is seeing how everyone involved treats it like they are getting away with something. It's a low-brow movie that doesn't make me feel like I need to take a shower afterwards. It's imperfect, but I feel like a perfect version of this would've been somehow worse.

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Magic Mike's Last Dance

Formula: Magic Mike XXL - all the friends


Magic Mike
is one of the least likely franchises in cinema in large part because the movies aren't that similar. Magic Mike is more of a drama about life as a male stripper looking for more. Magic Mike XXL is a road trip buddy comedy. Now Magic Mike's Last Dance is a "Put on one last show to save the theater" movie. It's wild the swings the films take, when ultimately they are all about Channing Tatum being attractive and a great dancer. Personally, I'm fine with them making a new one of these every couple years with little to no connection to the last one. Just try out every genre and story type. Magic Mike as a crime thriller. Magic Mike as a slasher movie. I'm all for it.

Last Dance sees a retired Mike (Tatum) working as a bartender for private events after his furniture business failed. At an event he's working, a rich divorcee (Salma Hayek) finds out about his past work and convinces him to come out of retirement for a private dance. Let's just say the dance goes very well. She then hires him to come out to London where she owns a theater. He's hired as the director of a new male revue. And, basically that's it. He puts together a show. We see the show. It's good and fun. The men are all very attractive with great dance moves. I'm not sure the correct way to say I'm a straight guy who still enjoyed the hell out of this that doesn't sound a little "gay panic" or defensive. It's true though.

I don't have a lot else to say about the movie. Tatum and Hayek look hot as hell. Steven Soderbergh is back as director (although did he ever really leave?) and he automatically brings competency to it. Last Dance isn't the absolute joy of XXL, but that's a high bar. It's a fitting conclusion(?) to a franchise that never needed to be a franchise.

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Antman & the Wasp: Quantumania

Formula: Ant-Man - Ant-Man


For all its faults, one thing the MCU has always been pretty good at is staying in the right lane despite all the overlapping stories and characters. The sub-franchises feel of a piece. I could watch the Captain America movies as part of an MCU rewatch but I could also watch just those three movies together. There's always some overlapping universe stuff, but the movies reflect what the lead character(s) are about. Much of that has to do with specific directors putting their stamp on the franchises. Ryan Coogler is Black Panther. Even if he leaves, the movies will be in his image. The Russos imprinted themselves on Captain America. James Gunn figured out Guardians of the Galaxy.

I would've said the same about Ant-Man and Peyton Reed. This was never the biggest of the MCU franchises, but the first two movies setup something reliable. Scott (Paul Rudd) is an affable, accidental hero. Hope (Evangeline Lilly) is the more driven complement to him. Hank (Michael Douglas) is an unwilling mentor. Scott has real legal and personal troubles as well as his comic book troubles. It's this nice San Francisco corner of the MCU. And the movies play with the ridiculousness of Ant-Man's power. The Thomas the Tank Engine fight is the high point of this. And it's why Rudd is a perfect fit. I won't pretend that I adored these movies, but they absolutely had an understanding of the formula that works best for them.

Meanwhile, there's Quantumania. A movie I kind of liked as I watched it and have liked less the more I've thought about it. In this film, the whole gang gets trapped in the quantum realm. That includes Scott, of course, Hope, now married to Scott, Hank, his wife/Hope's mother Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), and Scott's daughter Cassie (recast with Kathryn Newton). In the quantum real, they discover a whole CGI world that is under the rule of Kang the Conqueror (Jonathan Majors). They must find a way out while also stopping Kang.

Unfortunately, Quantumania plays with the Ant-Man formula too much. To start, the CGI world has no tactility. Since it's a foreign world, there's no ability to play with size. One of the simple joys of Ant-Man is seeing something that's normally small get really big or vica versa. With no recognizable objects in the quantum realm, any playing with size is stripped of all context. Also, the movie splits the group up in disastrous ways. Scott and Cassie are together in one story. Hope, Hank, and Janet are together in the other. That means Scott has to be the adult in the room for most of the movie. That's not what Rudd excels at. He can do heroic moments, but he's not a Chris Evans. Scott is so much more interesting when Hope is one-upping him and Hank is judging him. So, the Hope/Hank/Janet group is missing a punching bag. Hope largely disappears. Janet is stuck apologizing a lot for things she never mentioned. Hank doesn't have a target for his wry insults.

It's a shame, because there are elements I really like. The core cast remains great if actually in a scene together. This is Jonathan Majors' first film appearance as Kang, and he establishes himself as a worthy follow-up to Thanos. I can't wait to see even more of him. Ignoring some age wonkiness, I'm really excited to see Kathryn Newton in the MCU. She's an actress who keeps popping up in things I've seen. I've been waiting for her to get picked up by a franchise for a while now. She isn't great in Quantumania, but this is a tough movie to be introduced in. They rush through her reintroduction early in the movie, including the fact that she has an Ant-Man suit for some reason. By the time they are in the quantum realm, they treat her like an already established character. I think she'll fare a lot better in a more tactile world.

Quantumania is the most an MCU movie has every felt in service of the universe-building over the specific franchise. The universe-building has always been a part of the MCU movies; often annoying and transparent parts. Never this dominant though. As a piece of placesetting for Phase 5 of the MCU, Quantumania does its job. I just wish it didn't come at the expense of the Ant-Man franchise.

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: A Man Called Otto

Formula: Grumpy Old Men - 1 man


I'm a fan of "nicecore". That's the diminutive world people use to talk about shows or movies that are about nice people being nice. Don't get me wrong, I love a good story about the worst people in the world being awful too. But, there's something deceptively difficult to writing nice. It's easier to write something where a character is willing to throw a wrench into something for no good reason. It's harder when characters are aligned. And I've really come to appreciate the subcategory of "nicecore" about a person who thinks they are mean discovering they are nice. I don't mean a Scrooge having a change of heart. I mean someone who just doesn't realize their own nature. Recently, Honor Society was a great example of this. So is A Man Called Otto.

This movie, as you would expect, is about Otto (Tom Hanks). He's a recently retired widower. He's a man who likes when things work. It upsets him when things don't work. Given that the world is messy, he's become crotchety over the years. Just as he's given up on his ability to fix things, a series of small events like new neighbors moving in, convince him that he still has something to offer. The tagline for this is quite accurate: "Fall in love with the grumpiest man in America". Grumpy isn't mean. Grumpy is a puzzle.

This is something director Marc Forster has explored before. Both Christopher Robin and my beloved Stranger Than Fiction are about men who has largely shut themselves out of the world who are shaken out of their rut by some outside force. In Stranger Than Fiction, it's the disembodied voice of a narrator. In Christopher Robin, it's the return of an old friend. In A Man Called Otto, it's a new neighbor who won't accept Otto's prickliness. In all of these cases, the men are good people who forgot how to show it. That's what I like about A Man Called Otto. Otto never gets nicer. The same things annoy him. He just finds the ways to work around them. And it takes something that I'm dubbing a "Manic Pixie Dream World". Instead of a dream woman to get him out of his rut, it's a whole world that seems determined to find the good in him.

Tom Hanks is understandably good in this. He's America's Dad. He can't help but be lovable. Yet, he's believably a grump too. It's a role he's played a lot and he's refined it with age. The film is well-populated with people who are just on the right side of Stepford. New neighbor Marisol (Mariana Trevino) is the exact kind of friend he needs. I like the flashbacks to young Otto (Truman Hanks) with his wife (Rachel Keller) to let the audience know that Otto has always been like this and what kind of person it takes to break down his walls.

I've already gone on long enough, but I do still need to talk about the fact that this is a Hollywood remake of a Swedish movie that was based on a book. I get why people complain about Hollywood remakes. People shouldn't be that afraid of subtitles. Hollywood studios with their assorted corporate entities and meddling producers can suck the life out of an idea. Often, the films retain only the one-sentence pitch and lose all the charm on the margins that made the original so good. Often though, I think people complain about the remake because they have a stick up their ass (myself included sometimes). It's reflexive snobbery. I haven't seen A Man Called Ove, the Swedish version. I have no issue with Otto, but I can definitely sense some things that were likely lost in translation. There's a running gag throughout Otto where he tries to commit suicide but keeps getting thwarted by what turns out to be an opportunity to be a good person. That's something that requires nimble handling and specific alchemy to work. In Otto, it feels more forced than I assume it did in Ove. Like an element they knew they needed to keep but had no real desire to. The street Otto lives on also feels out of place. It feels like that setup might've been more specific to Sweden. The Otto movie is probably less prickly than the Swedish version. I assume much of that is because the prickly parts wouldn't translate as well. While overall, I did like Otto, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was reverse-engineering something.

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Infinity Pool

Formula: The White Lotus * Crimes of the Future


Rich people are the worst. Am I right?

In a nutshell, that is Infinity Pool. There are a bunch of trippy sci-fi flourishes and violence too, but the main point of Infinity Pool is that there's an ultra-elite class of people for whom the rules don't apply. It's a point that's made a lot these days in film and TV. It's not even a new point as much as a new target. A decade ago, after the Great Recession, it was banks and finance bros who got the focus. Now we've moved to the casual rich. Those who seem to be professionally rich. Personally, I'm hitting my saturation point on it. So, the question about Infinity Pool is if it offered enough variation on this idea to stave off my indifference.

It's hard to talk about Infinity Pool without spoiling it, so here's your warning. The film is advertised as the story about a couple, James (Alexander Skarsgard) and Em (Cleopatra Coleman), on vacation in a fancy resort in Europe. They meet another couple, Gabi (Mia Goth) and Alban (Jalil Lespert), and go on a day trip with them. On the way back to the resort, James hits and kills a pedestrian with his car. Since it's remote and night, they decide to flee the scene as though nothing happened. We're led to assume this will be a thriller about keeping this secret. Instead, the murder is discovered by morning and James is executed that day. Only, there's a twist. This fictional country has special technology and a deal with the US. They are able to - for a price - make a clone of James and execute that copy of him instead. Soon after, James learns that Gabi and Alban are members of a group of people who have been cloned and executed before. He starts hanging out with this group of people who are literally rich enough that laws and consequences don't apply to them. And even then, the twists aren't done, but I'll stop there.

In a lot of ways, Infinity Pool is an inversion on the Westworld idea. In that world, the rich can live lawlessly by abusing robots that come back every day. In this world, it's the rich who can die and come back every day. Weirdly, this also reminded me a lot of the Community episode where Pierce starts hanging out with a group of elderly trouble-making students. And of course, the way that they expect everyone in the world to work for them is reminiscent to The White Lotus. As I said, there's a lot of familiarity to this idea at its core.

What sets Infinity Pool apart is the cast and Brandon Cronenberg's warped vision. Cronenberg has a lot of his dad in his directorial style. The visuals and sounds of this movie are twisted. He's a fan of that upside down camera shot that's becoming popular for the "elevated horror" filmmakers. Cronenberg is great at extracting the casual inhumanity of his actors. Mia Goth - no surprise - is the stand out. While she's been around for a decade, in the last year, she's really established herself as the most intimidating petite women who sounds like the ghost of a gothic child. I get the sense that whatever a director asks her to do, she will do it and will go further just for the hell of it. Skarsgard is interesting too. He's in that Jude Law group of actors who you get the feeling wished they were less handsome. Skarsgard loves to be weird and pathetic. He's often betrayed by the fact that he also looks like a hunky Tarzan. He's found ways to use it to his advantage though. In Infinity Pool, it's the fact that beneath his looks and proximity to wealth he knows he offers nothing.

I do think I liked Infinity Pool. The more casual it got in its nihilism, the more I appreciated what it was doing. Cronenberg is good at making some of the weirdest parts of the movie feel almost mundane. It's set in a fantasy world hidden beneath the real world. As tired as I think the ending at the airport is (just a couple months ago, The White Lotus had the exact same thing), it is a necessary reset. Anyway, the performances alone made this interesting enough to watch.

Verdict: Weakly Recommend