Vice (***1/2)

I've been thinking over the last several years of movies, and with the end of the decade just ahead, can you blame me for beginning to ponder over what my favorites of the last 10 years are? Surely one that keeps coming to mind is Adam McKay's The Big Short, that wildly zany comedy about the Housing Market Crash that almost revolutionized the way narrative features can be told. How excited I was for McKay's return to nonfiction. How underwhelmed I ultimately felt...

The movie is about Dick Cheney (duh), the 46th President of the United States... I mean Vice President. There's a lot of intrigue surrounding the man, his public persona, and the rumors that maybe secretly he was running the country for his 8 years in office. What kind of film is this? Well, in many regards this is a by-the-numbers biopic that charts Cheney's early years and rise to power. We've seen the structure a million times before. One moment he's in a drunken barfight in Wyoming, and the next he has a small office next to Nixon's in the White House. The film intercuts between the man as Vice President and the chronological timeline of his rise to power over the years. Christian Bale is utterly transformed. In the early scenes we can recognize the actor (albeit with a significant amount of extra pounds). By the end, I was all but convinced this was the man in the flesh.

Of course this is Adam McKay, and as dramatic as the film can be, there are moments of pure comic gold. If you've seen "The Big Short" then you remember the cutaways to Margot Robbie in a bathtub explaining what a subprime mortgage is, or Ryan Gosling breaking the fourth wall to speak directly to the camera. VICE follows a similar idea, though McKay is clearly treading further into uncharted waters. There are scenes that serve as vignettes only, such as a scene in which Cheney and his wife transform into Shakespearean characters complete with rhyme, or one of the funniest fake-out endings I've ever seen. I nearly fell out of my chair as fake credits began to roll in the middle of the movie. Wait for it. The levity comes as a stark contrast to the actual actions of the Bush White House, complete with torture, bombings, and false imprisonment of various suspected terrorists over the years.

What's there not to like, then? As the film trudges along, I felt as though the story falls into a rutt, simply showing highlights of Cheney's time in office instead of continuing the plot and following these characters. The film has a beautiful introduction (pre-credits) that set up the stakes at hand. It shows Cheney and his wife (the astounding Amy Adams) and the bargain they make to rise up through the system. In many ways the film is about Lynne Cheney, who many could argue is the ultimate protagonist of the film and the one pulling all the strings. It's a great performance by Adams, worthy of Oscar love. I only wish the back half of the film remained as interested in her character as we do at the start.

By the climax, the intro of the film is all but forgotten, and you can quite literally feel the director (and editor) running out of steam. The film doesn't end, it runs off the tracks. I don't even understand Cheney's motivations once reaching the White House. The film hypothesizes that this man is only attempting to do right by his wife, but by the end he is a ruthless near-dictator that holds absolute power. Sure there are moments of humanity (especially with his daughter), but we lose focus of what Dick Cheney ultimately becomes.

Still, I enjoyed it for what it was. At it's best, Vice can be pure cinematic magic. At worst, it feels like a pandering attempt to recapture the vivid energy of McKay's earlier works. Bale is wonderful as the titular character, yet I feel like such a subtle performance might go over the heads of Academy voters who love fat suits but also love yelling and screaming and kicking and crying. Bale is the epitome of an opening quote: "beware of the man who says little." I think this is as good of a biopic as could be made about the man, but so much feels off. Sam Rockwell's awkward bit as George W Bush feels more like a skit than a living man, and many in the supporting cast feel squished into the movie if only to say "look it's that politician I remember!" Maybe the story could have worked if it focused on only the White House years, or the War in Irwaq, or something... What we are left with is a zany movie with almost too much to say. It's relentless, and not always in the best ways.

Green Book (***1/2)

GREEN BOOK made a splash at the Toronto Film Festival where it won the coveted "People's Choice" Award, a prize previously awarded to Best Picture giants like "12 Years a Slave," "Slumdog Millionaire," and "La La Land" (Oh, wait...). It makes sense. "Green Book" is a crowd-pleaser in all the typical ways. Directed by Peter Farrelly, the film is another addition to the idea of race relations as viewed through a white protagonist. It's one of those movies that caters to your emotions and lets you leave the theater by thinking 'wow it's so good things have changed.' Have they really?

The movie is a true story about accomplished pianist Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) who embarks on a tour with his 3-piece jazz band through the deep south. Shirley has rubbed elbows with the likes of Jack Kennedy and New York high society. As we learn, this journey is an attempt to connect with his roots. Logically he needs a driver, and fearing the worst he hires Tony "Lip," an Italian bouncer/driver/wannabe food critic (Viggo Mortensen). Come on, we've seen this movie before. You can imagine the dynamic: an uptight musician meets street-smart blue collar worker who also happens to be a casual racist. Through the course of their journeys, it becomes apparent that the two men have more in common than they do not.

We've seen the story before, especially that of race relations as told through a white protagonist. As far back as "In The Heat of the Night" and more recently with flicks like "The Help." I think what is more successful here is that both of our heroes go through a transformation, and it's as much about Shirley learning about his culture as it is Tony introducing him to it. As they drive, they listen to artists like Little Richard and Aretha Franklin, artists Shirley knows but has never listened to. Oh, and he's never tried fried chicken. Later in the film, Tony explains it to him in blunt terms: "It's like I'm more black than you are!" I can already head the dissenting articles come Oscar season.

As cliched as the film feels, it really finds success in the lead performances. Ali (recently an Oscar-winner for the drastically-different Moonlight) shines as an artist with much more to his being hidden under the surface. Rarely does it come to a boil, but we see his vices (drinking, isolation, etc) and we begin to understand the man. There's the briefest of scenes that indicates he is also a homosexual, but never again is this touched on or even pondered over. It's another scene in the long list of cliches that is needed to help flesh out this story. Sure, it's probably true, but the film cares less about the actual facts than hitting all the appropriate beats and in order.

Again, as much criticism as Mortensen might receive for playing a "white hero" in this film focused on black culture, I can't help but declare it to be the best male performance of the year. After gaining 50 pounds and adopting one of the most convincing Brooklyn/Italian accents I can remember, the actor who once played Aragorn is transformed in a stunning technical and comic performance. Not once did I even see the actor playing a part. Not often is such a character so vivid, but this film surely proves Viggo Mortensen as a technical master and also one of the sharpest ears for dialect. Watching him act is electric. Any scene without Mortensen simply doesn't feel like a scene.

Can you guess the ending? I was surprised to see it become a near-exact copy of "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" by the end, complete with a race to the Christmas dinner table. On the way, the two men race north to New York through a torrent snowstorm, racing away from a south that denied Shirley the chance to dine among white patrons in a restaurant and use the indoor bathroom at a party where he is the guest of honor. You can practically hear the sighs as they pass a "Now leaving West Virginia" road sign. This is a fine movie that will hit a lot of people's buttons and will likely garner much support come Oscar season. Is this one of the top 10 movies of the year? I sincerely doubt it. When is Hollywood going to start looking past these tropes? We don't need more stories about 1960's segregation seen through rose-tinted glass. Look at a newspaper. Why ignore what's right in front of us?

At Eternity's Gate (**1/2)

It's so disappointing to see a film with so little to say about its subject. Vincent Van Gogh has been the subject of the media's eye for some time now (look no further than last year's stunning "Loving Vincent"). Here is what the filmmakers might call a fresh attempt. One would think Julian Schnabel, the director (who made one of the all-time great movies "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" in 2007) would understand the artistic process, himself being a painter. What we are left with is a movie that mostly runs on colorful fumes alone.

What don't we know about Vincent Van Gogh, that mysterious painter who cut off his ear and then painted with heavy impressionistic brushstrokes? I'm not sure. It seems like our movie doesn't know much, either. The film slowly introduces us to the painter (played by a compelling yet miscast Willem Dafoe) and his friend Gauguin (Oscar Isaac) as they maneuver through the painterly world of 19th Century Europe. At one point Van Gogh removes his ear, another moment he is shot... and, I think that's it. The film has been heralded for its remarkable cinematography, and that's exactly the film we have: a reel for a very accomplished cinematographer (Benoit Delhomme). The 'story' falls to the wayside. I'm not one to complain about a slow-paced film, but for it to remain cinematic an audience still needs something to follow along with, right?

Dafoe, miscast for his age in my view (Van Gogh was a mere 37 when he died... compared to the whethered, 63 year-old face of the actor) still trots through the film with a certain charisma. However, with a gun to my head, I could not tell you a single town he visits, not a single subject of a painting he captured, a line of dialogue, or the beginning or end of the film. In fact during my showing I got up to use the bathroom and returned to essentially the same scene, some long saturated shot of a mountainous infinity. Perhaps this is one of the only movies that functions both a narrative and experimental film. Start the film from any place in its runtime, and essentially to leave with the same impression.

Watch "Loving Vincent" for a greater sense of place and the people in his life. Despite that film being told through flashbacks after the artist's death, we still understand the pathos of such an under appreciated yet influential figure. AT ETERNITY'S GATE is beautiful, sure, but I felt a greater sense of power by watching the film's trailer last month. To stretch it out to nearly 2 hours did nothing but lessen the impact of some already powerful images. I can't think of a film that filled me with more "meh" in recent time.

The Favourite (****1/2)

The two movies I've heard most people reference when discussing THE FAVOURITE is "All About Eve" and "Mean Girls." That's quite a stark divide in genres, and especially when compared alongside an historical costume piece, one might feel at a loss what the through line is? The answer is simply the plot of cunning women scheming behind each other's backs to gain power. Where "Mean Girls" saw power as sitting at the popular table at lunch, here it might involve starting a war with France.

The year is 1708, and the story is set almost entirely in the Palace of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman), a reclusive and sickly woman who relies on her partnership with Lady Sarah (Rachel Weisz) in order to run her government. In the first few scenes, we see Sarah deciding the trajectory of military troops, arranging meetings with heads of state, and guiding the Queen's hand here and there. Queen Anne, on the other hand, is immediately a sharply-drawn character. Out of touch, childish, easily manipulative...

Enter Abigail (Emma Stone), a former Lady herself who has fallen on hard times (her father lost her in a game of cards) and now returns to the aide of her cousin, Sarah, in hopes of finding work and steady employment at the palace. At first, Abigail catches glimpses of the Queen, comes to understand her relationship with Sarah... Soon she is scheming in an attempt to win back some semblance of respect and money again. She takes action through any means necessary.

This is less a battle of strength as it is about wits. This is not to say the favor of the Queen takes chess-like strategy to achieve. The real battle comes between Sarah and Abigail, both women who probably do not even love their monarch, but work tirelessly to remain at her right hand if only to say "yes, I'm the brains of this organization." It should also not be said that the Queen is painted as an oaf. There are so many moments of tenderness and sadness in which we learn how she has miscarried or lost all of her 17 pregnancies, and her sole companions in the Palace are her beloved rabbits. This is also not to say that she is a 'dumb' character. I thought back on the film once it ended, and I think our final moments with her highness show that there is some more plotting yet to be achieved after the credits begin to role. If an aspect of this movie's strength is its cast, then it is entirely Olivia Colman's performance that deserves all acclaim. Who could come along and beat her to an Oscar is beyond me. This is the year's best performance by 5 miles.

The real stars are the film's writers, Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara. Theirs is a story so crammed with juicy details that I think you do the film a disservice to only see it once. The film covers a wide range of political actions, tracking the politics of war while showing locked door meetings with the likes of the Prime Minister and politician Robert Harley (Nicolas Hoult). Harley attempts to use Abigail as a spy inside the Palace to learn of the Queen's plans for war, but how clueless he is to Abigail's ultimate motives. The dialogue is crisp, fresh, feeling more like a current drama than some stuffy period piece. Look no further than the film's dance sequence to know that we are not watching a movie aiming for 100% historical accuracy (I think).

In a year so full of great movies focused on women, here is another stunning addition. Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz complete a trifecta that is likely the best cast of the year. To see any of the three leads snubbed come Oscar time would be a travesty, and can I also hold out some hope for the always-great Hoult? It's amazing to see a movie like THE FAVOURITE receive such acclaim since it's more likely the film will be seen by a wider audience. That's not to say Yorgos Lanthimos (the director) has made a movie that is by the numbers. If you've seen his other films, you might find the conclusion to be a bit sudden at best, disappointing at worst. Think on it. I have been for hours. I have to hold out hope for the Queen to finally make matters right. In a story that ends with so little finality, we conclude on a long shot that fades in and out between the faces of Colman and Stone. I can only hope that the head that wears the crown will soon begin to start using her brain in the end...

Widows (****)

I wanted to love WIDOWS so much. Not only was it the next feature from director Steve McQueen, who most recently directed Oscar-winner "12 Years a Slave." It was also what appeared to be a taught thriller starring one of Hollywood's strongest actresses, Viola Davis. Maybe I expected too much, or maybe another viewing might illuminate more strengths of the film. Regardless, it's an impressive feat.

The movie is set in and around downtown Chicago and tracks the seedy underbelly of the city's political and violent crimes. There are several threads of storyline that open the film, almost to an overwhelming amount, but we soon realize the connection: that a group of men tasked with carrying out a robbery are killed in a police raid, and their wives are left with more questions than answers. The ringleader of the criminal troupe is a commanding leader (Liam Neeson), who is survived by his wife, Veronica (Davis). She is a woman already closed off the the world. She is quiet, speaks little, and carries herself with a ferocity that catches others off guard. Through flashbacks, we learn that it is a lot more than the death of her husband weighing on her heart. The other wives include Michelle Rodriguez, a small business owner who is left without a shop without the help of her husband, and Elizabeth Debicki as a frail woman who has come to accept abuse from the one man in her life. As these women all meet, they make a realization: that they are financially desperate.

Not the least of all is a threat from a candidate running for alderman (Brian Tyree Henry), a dominating man who lost money in the robbery. He is an up and coming candidate vying for a seat against Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell), the son of the current alderman who hopes to take up his father's mantle and continue on leading a neighborhood that is clearly not a reflection of his own upbringing. The addition of this political rivalry to an already crowded screenplay demands greater focus as an audience member, but McQueen is smart to use these scenes as a way to highlight Chicago's gentrification and racial divides. One shot in particular shows Mulligan traveling from a public speech back to his home down the street. In one shot, we see a deserted, graffitied neighborhood transform into a residential oasis complete with mansions and nice cars.

Veronica is left with her husband's notebook, a plan that highlights his future heist which would collect a cool $5 million. With blackmail from this politician weighing on her mind and no hope of pleading her case to the police, she reaches out to these other women with broken homes with a proposition: help me and walk away with $1 million each. It's a stretch, but one by one the women come to the same conclusion: "why not?"

The heist is slow to build, and in fact it feels like only the last 15 or 20 minutes that is the ultimate climax. The story is bulked up with side plots including one of the widows becoming a female escort and falling for an architect, a hitman (Daniel Kaluuya) hunting Veronica always one step behind, and a babysitter who falls into the group of women by mere chance. Thinking back on the story, I see how each thread is resolved, but to keep the momentum going, I can't help but wonder if a few more edits might have helped?

Viola Davis is fantastic. What more can be said? She commands the screen in a way much separated from her more sympathetic turns in, say, "Doubt" or "Fences." She transforms from a woman burdened by loneliness, and then develops into the heir apparent to her husband's work. The other widows come to despise her, but there is careful thought and determination that she brings to the role that demands respect (and dare I say another Oscar nomination?). The widows are all great, but the other standout comes from Debicki as Alice, this tall blonde woman who begins to fall for one of her clients. She could have developed into a more comedic part, but she has a few scenes of real cunning that prove she has more than meets the eye.

Once again, the addition of Colin Farrell to the cast is questionable to say the least, as time and again he has proven that American accents are not his forte. As a sixth generation Chicagoan, his dialect sounds more like an Irish man who has lived in Boston for a few months. It's a completely baffling miss that distracts from the movie at every turn, especially in his scenes against the always powerful Robert Duvall. Also questionable is Kaluuya (a recent nominee for Best Actor in "Get Out"). As the villain, he simply misses the mark. His attempt at ruthlessness simply comes across as "acting" and the scenes meant to demonstrate his ferocity instead show an actor that is perhaps out of his range. I felt the same about his performance in "Black Panther." Perhaps playing a henchman isn't his calling.

Like "The Fugitive," "Widows" creates a real sense of Chicago and demonstrates a sense of place that gives these characters room to explore. The cinematography is exciting, and there is more than one sequence that involves very technical camera moves and expert framing that captured my imagination. Like I said, there is so much to like here, I only wish the movie was more a sum of all its parts. As a piece of entertainment, I think many will walk away satisfied. If you're looking for a pure action flick though, you might be surprised at all the other plot you will need to tread through. "Widows" is ultimately an enjoyable (albeit crammed) story.

Boy Erased (***1/2)

BOY ERASED is a perfectly fine adaptation of an eye-opening nonfiction book. Based on Garrard Conley's memoir of the same name, it documents a boy's journey through conversion therapy, a "treatment" in which Christian fundamentalists attempt to cure homosexuals of their sinful ways. Contrary to what some might expect, there is no shock therapy, there is no physical torture, nothing ripped from "Clockwork Orange" or the like. What we see is a picture of a real facet of America - a group of people who aren't smart enough to see what is so plain to many others: that there is nothing needing to be cured.

Lucas Hedges plays the lead role, renamed Jared Eamons, and he's quickly finding himself typecast as the closeted gay son to a guarded religious family. First "Lady Bird" and now here, we see perhaps the darker aspects of what such a coming out might risk. He is the only child to a preacher (Russell Crowe) and his wife (Nicole Kidman), and they live comfortably in an affluent southern suburb. They buy Jared a new car for his birthday, they allow him to invite girls over... All the while we see that something is bubbling up in Jared, and when he finally admits to being gay, it's a nail straight through the heart of this family.

The movie is told partially in flashbacks, first showing us the routine of this conversion camp, and then reverting back to those times in high school and college that, according to these "therapists," guilted him into turning towards homosexuality. It's not all fun and games. Jared's first intimate encounter with a boy in his dorm is a violent attack, and his second is a perfectly lovely night of conversation and quiet stares. At camp, that's not enough. Jared is expected to dig deep into his family lineage to find the drunks, the gamblers, the murderers, those who watch porn, etc, in order to source the root of this inherent evil. While modern doctors tell Jared he is perfectly healthy, to these fundamentals, science isn't an acceptable conclusion.

Lucas Hedges is quickly a rising star in Hollywood, and he delivers a grounded performance that is believable as a boy learning to think outside the box. Same for Nicole Kidman, ever-great as a mother who also discovers more about her own opinions along the way. The camp itself is far enough away from home that Jared and his mother drive and spend their nights at a nearby hotel (yes, Jared gets to go home after sessions). Together (and away from their demanding father), they have quiet conversations about each other over dinner and in their suite. I think Kidman deserved one or two more scenes to really flesh out this role, but her final moments prove why she is such a talent. Same for Russell Crowe, once an Academy darling and now making it by in roles here and there. His performance is one that is both horrifying and yet fully realized. By the film's end, I found myself most drawn to this man... Not his hatred, but his own personal fears of losing everything he had attempted to create with his family. As unlikely as it would appear, Crowe would richly deserve some recognition for this minor supporting part.

Ultimately, the film still feels like the work of a first-time director (writer, director, and star Joel Edgerton). It's well-written, but so often we are left with moments of melodrama if only to progress the story. There's a mention of a suicide that is all but forgotten about 30 seconds later. We also might have issue relating to Jared as he makes a sudden decision during class to rebel and end it all so abruptly. I thought he was a devote Christian who believed in this therapy? Where does this change come from? Troye Sivan, singer and now actor, has the presence of a bonafide star even in his brief moments on screen. There's an intensity that rings true for a boy going through such a process. We could have used more of his perspective.

Ultimately, is such a story the right one to tell? Minor spoilers here: in the end, Jared convinces his parents to accept him for who he is, and it seems like all involved have jumped onboard the "gay bandwagon." What does this story seek to tell us, that if you become a good enough writer that you can convince someone to change their mind? I have heard from people and met young men who have gone through conversion therapy, and it seems more likely that for survivors, their parental relationships are forever damaged. Sure, it's a nice tear-jerker Hollywood ending, but how accurate is it? People don't change. At least not to such an extreme. If it were this easy to convince a pastor to accept homosexuality as a lifestyle, one might expect world peace to be a bit easier to attain. Notice how the film mocks a therapist for observing that straight men stand a certain way, and then the filmmaker later using the same pose to indicate a character might be closeted after all. Is this a clever bit of visual storytelling, or are we led to believe that, yes, all gays stand a certain way? On the surface, the film is very strong, but digging a little deeper, there is a lot more to discuss and to pick apart.

(As a side note, the movie makes a distracting, almost fatal error when one of the characters plays a Troye Sivan song on the radio. This got me thinking - in the world of this movie, then Troye Sivan is a real musician... But he is also a character in conversion therapy... So who is he? Does this boy just happen to resemble the pop star? As I was thinking about this paradox in my head, I ended up missing about 10 minutes of the movie. Yikes.)

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (***)

I was anxious to see this film after a promising trailer and and in intrigue around the scandal of a woman using forgery to get ahead. Based on a true story, Lee Israel fabricated over 400 typed letters and passed them off as the private correspondence of long-dead writers and celebrities. She walked away with a bundle but was ultimately caught and convicted in federal court. Talk about a wild ride.

The movie centers around Israel, played by Melissa McCarthy in a departure from tone for the comedic actress. Once an Oscar-nominee for "Bridesmaids," the actress has fallen into a rut of low-brow comedies with fart and fat jokes galore. It's refreshing to see her stripped down, no makeup, diving deep into a character with so many problems just below the surface. Lee, once a successful writer, has fallen on hard times. Her books no longer sell, her agent has lost faith (an agent who is more focused on her famed client Tom Clancy... It's set in 1991). Her cat is sick, and she needs money fast. Through a series of unlikely circumstances, Israel stumbles upon a letter tucked away in an old book written by Fanny Brice. In an attempt to sell the letter, the buyer offers some advice: it would be more valuable if it had more juicy gossip. Israel concocts an idea.

Marielle Heller, our director, creates a story with a New York feel and sense of place. It clicks along nicely and tells the story it intended, nothing more. McCarthy shows us a woman who is nearly broken. Her past relationships have failed, her apartment is a hoarders nightmare, and she shies away from the world because she knows she is unwanted by all others... All others except Jack Hock (Richard E Grant), a neighborhood drunk and former friend who finds her in a bar and carries her forward with a new sense of purpose. Where Israel is a shut in, Hock is a flamboyant character that leaps off the screen. Not discussed in the trailer is the fact that both of our "heroes" are gay, with Hock using his sex as currency, while Israel pulls away from any sense of love. It's a well-crafted combo.

The film, for me, was simply adequate. We know what will happen, and we understand the stakes. Much of the forgery is glossed over in favor of more human elements, such as when Israel goes on a date with one of her sellers and she simply can't take a hint. While I enjoyed McCarthy in the lead role, it's really Richard Grant who walks off with the movie (and maybe an Oscar?). His is a performance that simply breaks through the mundane to become something more real - a living, breathing character who has a beating heart underneath all the callous layers.

It's kind of a routine story when you break it down - one where our protagonist uses her skills in a new way and ultimately realizes that she isn't a failure after all. This isn't a caper film that uses quick editing and suspense to create a mood of "will she get caught?" We know she will. The story is ultimately about someone stepping outside her shell, and as a result gets a new perspective on life. Maybe that's a bit boring when it's summed up like that, but ultimately this movie really seeks to tell us nothing more. A modest recommendation here, if only so you can see one of the year's best performances from Mr Grant.

Bohemian Rhapsody (**)

BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY is such a "color-by-numbers" film that I think anyone with half a brain could have written a version at least as competent. The film, long in production hell and with a history of stars attached, hits all the familiar notes we expect in a musical biopic... And little else. This is less a movie about Queen as it is Freddie Mercury, and it's even less a film about Mercury as it is about the tropes of a long-cliched genre. Did these filmmakers have anything new they wanted to say??

The film opens on Mercury (Rami Malek) as he gets up from the dinner table to listen to a local rock band. The scene is complete with the angry father telling him he needs to get a job and whatnot. Cut to a dingy band performing halfway decent music, but suddenly losing their lead singer. "What are we going to do next?" Would you believe Freddie approaches these musicians and offers them some handwritten songs and his own vocal skills? Mercury, with his eclectic style and feminine mannerisms, is soon a hit. The band begins a tour, and then records a record, and then it's on to a global tour!

Not only does Bryan Singer (the fired director) have no idea how to approach such a historically popular band, but he also does not understand the pacing of film. We go from these boys forming a misfit garage band to signing a record deal in the span of 30 seconds, and from there we begin countless montages that show the cities Queen tours in. There is no exploration of their rise to fame, we instead make the jump from nobodies to superstars. Whoopie. Even the creative process is washed over with boring scenes of songwriting that feels less like artists working and more like a director directing.

Rami Malek, a star who I frankly have little interest in, is one of the few shining stars of the movie. In interviews, this wide-eyed actor with a penchant for the weird seems like the most uncharismatic actor in Hollywood today. On screen, there is an undeniable transformation. No, it's not the wig and false teeth that sell this performance (wigs that frankly look ill-fitting and more in tune with a stage production of Peter Pan), it's the mannerisms with which Malek captures the man. He moves about on the stage with ease, and with slight gestures and struts, we believe this is a person who could be a pop star. In comparison to the flat personality of Malek we see off screen, this is a remarkable performance in a certain way.

The film somewhat glosses over Mercury's sexuality, choosing to bypass any homosexual relationships with montages involving red light and scantily-dressed men. Even his ultimate relationship to his partner, Jim, is covered by no more than 3 or 4 minutes on screen. The eventual culmination of the film (which occurs on the day of the Live Aid concert) is blatantly unlikely. You would think that on the morning of the biggest concert in the world, the lead singer wouldn't have time to hunt down a love interest in a phone book, have tea at his parents, and also get to the stage on time. Think again.

I left this movie no more than 5 hours ago and large chunks are already wiped clean from my mind. I can't remember much about the story, since so much is condensed into black and white arguments over fame and family, and we learn little about the inner workings of these characters. Even the fellow musicians of the band, each unique in their own way, are merely pawns in this story tailored to hit all the highs and lows of the Freddie Mercury story. Nothing more. Did we need a movie about Queen? Sure. I only think that given the length of time they spent trying to get it to the big screen, you would think the final product might be a bit more of a spectacle.

Suspiria (*****)

I began reading some of the reviews for Luca Guadagnino's SUSPIRIA, and I am not surprised to find a split right down the middle. Is this the most polarizing film of the year? It's possible, although this year's  Hereditary likely had as much divisiveness among moviegoers if not moreso. What a year for horror! Clearly I fell on the side of praise. I left the theater chilled to the bone. This is a powerful, horrific, and heartbreaking story.

I will admit I have not seen the original film (the Dario Argento horror classic), although I am led to believe that this is not a straight remake. The film is broken down into 6 acts including an epilogue, a structure that would make Quentin Tarantino proud (and we know he liked this film, Guadagnino himself said that Tarantino was in tears after a private screening). We have two stories playing out: one of an American dancer named Susie (Dakota Johnson) who travels to Berlin to join a dance troupe held in high esteem, and another of an elderly psychologist (Tilda Swinton in a gender-bending and uncanny performance) who is investigating the disappearance of one of the dancers who has gone missing.

The story is logical, linear, and in some aspects we might see where the inspiration behind "Black Swan" was sourced. Here we learn about the girls in this company, how they wake up, stretch, and go through fluid and natural exercises led by Madame Blanc (again, Tilda Swinton). She is a former dancer herself, working alongside a set of elder women who oversee the operation. The girls are not charged to attend this school, but they are expected to commit to the regimen. Susie, at first shy, quickly establishes herself as a willing subject, taking the lead and working one on one with Blanc to hone her skills.

Beneath the surface, and very quickly, we see everything that is not right. In the film's opening sequence, the missing dancer (played by Chloe Grace Moretz) divulges the secrets of this school to her doctor. That these women are witches, and that they will follow her to no end. "Delusions of grandeur" is just about all the doctor jots down in his notebook. It's not even by act 2 that we come to see the truth... The film's first introduction to the horror is one that will be in my mind for weeks: that of a dancer who's movement rips apart the body of another through some sort of spell. This isn't "Rosemary's Baby" in which we are left guessing until the finale. The stakes are very clear and are established in plain sight. Perhaps that's what helps add to the suspense of it all.

At 2.5 hours, this film might feel like a drag, but with some of the most effective editing of the year, the story paces along. There is a visual language that is so clearly Guadagnino (who directed Call Me By Your Name last year and other Italian greats like "I Am Love"). The camera oftentimes lazily drifts around, our perspective shifts, the editing is not paced... It's unsettling in a way that is difficult to place. In another film, we would not notice. The clever way this film is assembled is just another layer to the madness. Viewers might question the constant intercutting to this elderly doctor, and old man who walks slow and talks quietly. You might ask yourself until the very end, when Susie and he finally have a conversation in the final scene, and it's a moment that might bring tears to your eyes if you are still engaged in the story. I sure was.

From dance sequences with razor sharp editing to the climax, a horrifying sequence in the school's basement that is shot entirely in red light and feels like a nightmare, this is a movie I will be thinking about for a while. What makes it so effective is that there are no aspects of this film that rely on modern horror conventions. This is a style that is long gone. It's refreshing to see, and especially exhilarating when it's accomplished so well. I know many people will find distain for this film. Many might outright hate it. All I can advise is to go in with an open mind and to view it not a a "slasher" but as a mystery. Maybe even melodrama. Across all aspects, this is one of the most impressive movies I've seen all year.

Halloween (**)

HALLOWEEN was being touted as a great film by early reviews - a return to form for a series that has only seen poorly-made sequels to the infamous (and still suspenseful) 1978 classic. How great the anticipation was, and how great was the thud when I realized that this sequel/reboot/thing was just as bad as everything that came before it.

It was a curious but maybe inspired decision to pen this as a direct sequel to the original film. No longer is Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) the estranged sister of Michael Myers. No more nieces and nephews and pagan cults and Tyra Banks and the like. This was a fresh start to continue a story that ended when a masked killer disappeared into the night after killing a slew of horny teens.

Strode has grown up tormented by the terror of that night when 3 of her friends were killed. She has built a life around defense, training, learning how to fire guns, and training her daughter (Judy Greer) and granddaughter to fight as well. Her house is a militarized base on the off chance that Myers returns to Haddonfield. Well what do you know...

The film begins on a sour note when we meet two podcasters journeying to the prison (or asylum) where Michael Myers is held. What might have been a suspenseful scene ala "Silence of the Lambs" as we journey deeper into this prison, we instead have an awkward scene in which the journalist presents Michael with his old mask and then the other prisoners in the vicinity begin to giggle with anticipation. I forgot, is the mask some sort of spiritual item that Michael has lost? Why is this scene filmed with such staccato editing and rousing music? (Or is it just a cheap halloween mask he stole from a store to conceal his identity all those years ago... Answer: it's just a mask.) The whole film begins to feel like that - something more profound than it really is. Even the opening credits recreate the famous pumpkin, only this time with very jarring CGI.

What do you know, Michael is due to be transported to another facility on October 30th, and the bus breaks down (if you are smart you might be able to figure out what happened to the driver). Off goes the killer with a stolen truck to wreak menace once again. His first series of kills are carried out in a long take (about 2-3 minutes maybe) where Myers wanders through trick-or-treaters and sneaks in back doors to violently slash single women at home. Notice how the scene plays out: with the Halloween theme blaring over the images. No longer do we have the quiet stalking of the original film - the director is basically forcing us to understand something: MICHAEL MYERS IS BACK!

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out all the flaws in this film's ill-advised script. Not only is the connection between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers explored (the doctor at one point says something along the lines of "what is the bond you two share??"), but the whole motive of Myers is astoundingly backwards. In the first film ("the night HE came home"), we see Myers has camped out in his childhood home, only to begin stalking Laurie once she comes knocking on his door. That's it. Now 40 years later, we are supposed to believe that he still wants to kill the one that got away. Give me a break. Another item of fascination is how random these characters are, and in so many different places, yet Michael Myers always manages to walk his way to the right victims at any given moment (including stumbling upon Laurie Strode's granddaughter no less). What a small town!

While the original film lacked some levity, it made up for with tone - that ominous music, the drawn out pace... The success of John Carpenter's original is in the build up - the victims go about their night, unaware that their every move is being watched from the shadows. It's a stroke of genius for pacing. This sequel seems not to care. Kills are overly-violent, astonishingly frequent, and met with some of the most out of place humor I can think of. One kid (who is indeed funny with several one-liners that made me laugh) walks in on his babysitter being stabbed. Instead of screaming or running away, the little boy all but says "oh Hell no I picked the wrong night to go to bed early" complete with the Three Stooges *womp-womp-womp* sound as he runs off in a trail of smoke. Another egregious sequence shows two police officers discussing sandwiches and brownies. It's clear this scene was included for a laugh. How highly, highly humorous.

I will admit the film's final 30 minutes are what kept the movie afloat with 2 stars. It's a well-constructed sequence in which Laurie Strode hunt for Michael in her own home. As silly as the motives are and as unlikely as the story leading up to this moment, it's still effective in it's absence of music, dark shadows, and mounting tension at every turn. Still if you think about it, this is a similar story to "H20" in which Laurie Strode faces Michael Myers after all these years and becomes empowered to fight back. I'm going to say it - that film had a much better conclusion, too.

I want to keep venting, if only because this film promised so much and left me so thoroughly upset. I want to complain about the doctor, who makes the most unlikely decision midway through the film that nearly ruined it all if not for his sudden departure from the story. I want to complain about the countless teenage characters who have no purpose, no motivation, and no clear contribution to this film. I can't even remember Laurie Strode's granddaughter's name, or her boyfriend, or what her motivation was... No matter. Even John Carpenter's score (how great that the original director, writer, and composer returned to do the music?) feels phoned in and mostly rehash of the 1978 version. The film is meant to conclude on a moment of finality - but how dumb are these characters that they think Michael Myers is dead? He's been shot, burned, blown up, fell down a well, and burned some more... The screenwriter should have taken a couple notes from "Halloween H20"... Watch that film's conclusion to understand why.

A Star Is Born (****)

There's the famous story how Judy Garland was due to give birth to her son on the night of the Academy Awards. Cameras were on standby as it was believed she was the frontrunner by a mile for her rendition of "A Star Is Born." Of course, Grace Kelly beat her out, and the camera crew surreptitiously snuck out to leave Garland in the dirt. There have now been 4 incarnations of the "Star is Born" story, and though Judy's version might be the most acclaimed, here comes an unexpected duo to give her a run for her money.

I remember when this project was first announced, Clint Eastwood would be the director and Beyonce would be the star. How much it has changed, but I can't imagine any cast reaching the success of Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper (who writes and directs as well). The story is essentially the same dating all the way back to the 1937 original with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March. Our hero, Ally (Gaga) is a poor nobody with barely a dream of becoming a star. By chance, she has a run in with Jackson Maine (Cooper), a country/rock star who fans constantly stop in the streets. Their first encounter is detailed in the first 30 minutes of the film, one long night of talking, drinking, singing, and driving around the quiet LA streets. Jack is a charming drunk, Ally sees him as a man, not a celebrity. The two hit it off.

The movie's most successful sequence comes when Jack calls Ally to fly out to one of his concerts, and despite hesitation, she makes the journey to watch him from the side stage. He calls her to stage to perform an arrangement of a song that she concocted when they first met, and voila, she is instantly a star. It's Gaga's best moment as an actress - her fear of the stage, but her firm belief that all she needs is a break to make it big. As she sings the lyrics, she covers her face, she shies away from Cooper and his charm on the guitar. You forget that this is a woman who has sold out arenas for years. As she's singing this song ("The Shallows," one of many great songs in the movie), you can't help but see this character living and breathing.

If you've even heard a bit about the story, then you know the whole movie. The two fall in love, get married. Jack continues drinking himself to destruction. Of course Ally gets a record deal, and her music is overly-produced and shallow. She sings about how good a guy looks in his jeans, and dances on stage with choreographed backup performers in shiny tight outfits. It's somewhat of a meta-commentary for Gaga herself, though I would argue that her music up to now has been a bit more thoughtful and personal. It reminded me of many recent movies, mostly "La La Land" in the way we see a musician sell out in order to get ahead. At times it's a bit heavy-handed, and rolls easily into the classic melodrama that all the original incarnations embraced. Does the idea of artists selling out still work today? Maybe, but it's definitely not as potent the 4th time around.

As much as the acclaim is going to Lady Gaga for her breakout performance (her first leading role, and it reminds me of when Cher broke away from poop songs to star in "Silkwood" and "Moonstruck," for which she won an Oscar), I really think the star is Bradley Cooper. He's made the transition from comedy to drama, and with 3 Oscar nominations for acting (soon to be 4), it's hard not to see how greatly talented he is. I don't even mean his singing voice, which is very good, but the subtle way he transforms into this southern man on the verge of destruction. He adopts an accent that is meant to mimic his on-screen brother (played by Sam Elliott, who is very good in his few scenes), and he travels from extreme highs to the lowest of lows, oftentimes in the same scene. Could the Oscar go to anyone more deserving?

It's a well-made film that isn't for everyone but I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy. For a first-time director, you can feel Cooper giving it his all. There are certainly pitfalls in the story (the relationship between Bradley Cooper and Sam Elliott certainly feels washed over, barely there) and the long sequences without music made me wish we could cut back to Lady Gaga at the piano that much sooner. For what it is, this is still a showstopper that hits the ground running. The first 45 minutes up until we hear that first duet is magic. I only wish the rest of the film could have kept up the pace. Will Gaga become the critical darling and compete for an Oscar? I don't know. The track record for "A Star Is Born" winning Oscars isn't great, but this feels like one that could change all the rules.

The Nun (1/2 star)

You would be hard-pressed to find a shred of logic in anything that happens in THE NUN, the sequel/prequel/something that falls in line with "The Conjuring Universe." You would also find it difficult to understand any character or their motivation, and that includes the titular demon who sports a habit and old woman makeup to match. I remember watching the original Conjuring movie with general unease and a few moments of scares. What happens in The Nun scarcely qualifies as filmmaking, let alone the scary type.

The movie opens on a couple nuns wandering through the catacombs of their monastery, complete with cardboard crosses and a layer of cold fog on the ground. It's the type of art direction that would do Ed Wood proud. The ladies search for something in order to fend off a demon terrorizing their home, and the scene ends with the one unsettling image in the whole movie: that of a dark floating nun slowly gliding down the hallway at night. Think Nosferatu, only less effective.

Later, we cut to the Vatican ordering Father Burke (Demian Bichir) to investigate the supernatural nunery in the secluded woods of Romania. Along the way, he is tasked with picking up an American postulate/soon-to-be-nun named Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga). She asks the priest why she is assigned to go on this journey with him, especially considering that she has never been to Romania before. Burke ponders whether or not it might become evident later on.... I am here to report right now that there is never an answer as to why she was asked to go. Moving on. In Romania, the two meet the comic relief named Frenchie, a horny Frenchman living in Romania to tend sheep or whatnot. He brings them to the monastery through long winding mountain roads and the cliched "we must walk from here" fork (the horse doesn't want to go any further...) Thus the "story" begins.

It's almost baffling how soon the "horror" begins, and by horror I refer to the jump scares accompanied by loud music and a laugh afterwards. The director makes practically no effort to build atmosphere, or set up the rules, or establish who is who and what is what. The movie feels almost exclusively like a run of deleted scenes. At one moment, Burke wakes up at night and follows a ghost to the cemetery, and then has a vision of himself being buried alive. Dream? Nope - cut to the man actually buried alive in a dark night scene. How did this happen? Immediately after we cut to Sister Irene, awakened by something and wandering the empty castle. She sees the demonic nun in a reflection, and then screams, and then moves on. On and on the film trudges. There is no story here. It's like a haunted house: you walk through and get a little scare in each new room, but there is no central plot you are following.

The film concludes with a baffling scenario in which a vial of the blood of Jesus Christ must be procured in order to drive the demon back to Hell (imagine a character explaining that in all seriousness, now imagine how hard my audience laughed at such a farce). I might have raised a couple of logical questions, such as "how can blood remain blood red and liquid after 2,000 years?" or "if the demon nun came up from Hell, then why is she only haunting this abandoned castle? Why not spread forth upon the earth?" To be honest, the finale of the film is just like the rest of it. It's beyond the point of "so bad it's good." This movie defies all logic, all scares, and comes out on the other side as an example of a visionless movie.

The feeling I had walking out of THE NUN wasn't disappointment. It wasn't boredom. It was almost a feeling of embarrassment - embarrassed at the filmmakers for making something so awful, embarrassed on their behalf for showing audiences something as subpar... We deserved better. I still think that "Hereditary" is the best film of the year so far, and that was a damn good horror movie. I suppose then that the only good thing to come from seeing THE NUN is now I can ask about future horror movies: On a scale of 'Hereditary' to 'The Nun,' how scary was it?

Sorry To Bother You (*****)

Last year a movie was released called "Beatriz at Dinner" in which a masseuse played by Selma Hayek went toe to toe with a big business CEO as they discussed immigration, race, money, politics... I still remember a film critic who declared it "the first great film of the Trump era." Nonsense. Drivel. Look no further than SORRY TO BOTHER YOU, a remarkable debut by director Boots Riley to get a taste of the rebellion that is stirring in this country.

How does one even begin to describe a film so ambitious and full of ideas? It's hard to even begin. Let's talk about the movie's tone and setting, some strange breeding of Charlie Kaufman, David Lynch, and Spike Lee (and Spike Jonze for that matter). There is something so ludicrous here that I really haven't seen since the first time I saw "Being John Malkovich" (Kaufman & Jonze, of course). Here, we follow our hero named Cassius aka "Cash" (Lakeith Stanfield, who you will remember from "Get Out" last year). Desperate for work to support his girlfriend (Tessa Thompson) as they live out of his uncle's garage. Cash lands a job at a call center named RegalView. The job is lousy, commission only, dingy workplace, and shady management. Their sole mantra when it comes to productivity: "Stick to the script."

Cash takes the advice of another caller (Danny Glover) who advises him to take on a white voice when making his calls. No, he doesn't mean simply to put on a more nasal voice, he tells Cash to "act like you're going to drive off in a Mercedes when you finish the call." In one of the film's first jaunts into surrealism, Cash's white voice is none other than David Cross (how fitting a voice, indeed). Soon, Cash is rising through the ranks as a natural seller. As he is promoted, the tired workers of RegalView begin to form a riot as they begin to seek benefits. In an even more grand picture, global protests are beginning over a company called "WorryFree" which offers people lifelong housing and food in exchange for a lifetime of servitude for the company.

With each new scene, Riley creates more and more whimsey, and justly greater steaks. What I just described is basically the plot as seen in the film's trailer, but this covers no more than the first third of the picture. Cash later goes on to meet Armie Hammer (in a ridiculously coked-up role) as WorryFree's CEO. He enlists Cash to work for him after seeing his strong work ethic. Cash has also been promoted to Power Caller on the top floor, where a gold elevator takes the star employees to luxury offices where they telemarket things like guns, war, and human beings. Oh, and the elevator has a voice that encourages these Power Callers to "not jerk off" and to "build up stamina for the day ahead." Charlie Kaufman would certainly be proud.

The satire is blatant, but it feels right for this time. As Cash begins to navigate the growing concern among the everyday man as big corporations and government take over the city, we also get a peek at their television stations. One channel is a gameshow in which players get the shit beaten out of them. Can you guess the title? Another is a reality show about workers eating sludge and sleeping in endless bunkbeds in WorryFree. And the last is the news, which makes light of the most meaningless stories and washes over the dark and sinister plotting going on by Armie Hammer and his company. As the citizens in this farcical world begin to fall in over their heads, here is an outward appearance of smiles and good times.

Some people I talked to were put off by the film's final revelation and climax. I suppose that if you look at the film's first scene and then very last, you would guess that you are watching two very different movies. But as I sat there and watched this story progress, first as a man needing a job and finally open warfare on the streets of Oakland, the logical progression is smart and important. While Boots Riley has crammed in enough here for maybe 4 separate films, nevertheless this is the voice of an artist who is taking big risks with big payoff. Some might compare this to Jordan Peele's "Get Out," but I think here our story is less about race and more about American society as it stands today. Both are high concept, tightrope walks that seem on the verge of crumbling. When you see it done so well, it's hard not to smile. This is certainly one of the year's very best.

McQueen (****)

MCQUEEN follows in the popular documentary trend of dead celebrities. Those especially who met tragic endings. Think "Amy." Or "Whitney." I suppose the Mr Rogers flick partially fits in. I don't think our filmmakers sought to create anything groundbreaking in their chronicle of Alexander McQueen. His fashion and impact on global style was enough to break the mold. This doesn't make "McQueen" anything particularly awful, but I sure felt like there was so much left off the table.

When thinking of high fashion, perhaps no name is as known as McQueen, and yet no physicality is more atypical. The film tracks the man's journey from middle-class Britain to the creative director position at Givenchy and beyond. His appearance was rather shocking: overweight, short hair. Bad teeth. A blue collar twang to his dialect. This is surely not what someone pictures as a designer of women's dresses and couture, but here we are. Alexander (known as Lee to friends) worked hard from apprentice to designer - an endless source of energy and ideas.

Our story is chronicled in several chapters, each bookended with home footage of the man (we have "Amy" to thank for resorting to such crude source material) and interviews of his colleagues and boyfriends. Where the movie lacks insight becomes clear near the mid-section. McQueen is at the top of his game, having won Designer of the Year several times (briefly mentioned) and working his way through more and more dark subjects for his shows. And then a close friend dies. And then he became depressed. And then things got messy. To say that a documentary needs to understand its subject isn't necessarily accurate, but here it felt as though our directors were going through the motions - hitting the chronological beats - but ultimately falling short of what McQueen was actually living through. There is little indication to show why he began to suffer depression, or why his friends did nothing about it. It just sort of... happens. And then the film ends.

Perhaps this was the ultimate goal - to show a life so full of promise cut off so soon. I don't know. For me, I found the ending quite sudden and without a deeper understanding. The footage we have (particularly of his fashion shows) is stunning, and to see the man work on individual pieces behind the scenes is exciting and intimate. I admired the movie for its approach, although the almost cliched use of Philip Glass and Michael Nyman to score a documentary (from "The Thin Blue Line" to "Man On Wire") is already beginning to feel overused. I know many people will love this film. I certainly appreciated it. Just think on this: a documentary should be an accurate representation of its main character - it's only respectful to do so. That doesn't mean the filmmakers shouldn't imbue that story with some personal gusto. Documentaries can be the most moving of all film genres - why not try to make them great?!

Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far On Foot (*****)

There are areas where I could nitpick the latest film from Gus Van Sant, but ultimately I believe this is one his his most human films - something that should be seen despite potential shortcomings. As a whole, DON'T WORRY is about as wonderful as any movie I have seen this year. Some reviewers may dislike the editing, or the costumes, or this or that... Let me just say that there was not a single moment that didn't ring true.

The movie is centered around John Callahan (Joaquin Phoenix), a cartoonist who became disabled following a horrific car crash. He's partially to blame - Callahan is a raging alcoholic. We discover his binging habits early in the film as we analyze the day leading up to his accident. From tequila to beer and vodka to gin, it's a wonder he made it out alive at all. Following his slow process of acceptance, Callahan learns to use an electric wheelchair, he falls in love, and most importantly - he joins Alcoholics Anonymous and begins the journey to recovery.

There he meets his sponsor and mentor, Donnie (Jonah Hill). He is a meek, flamboyant type who nurtures a band of recovering alcoholics as a means to make up for his own failures in life. The film journeys down many different paths as we learn about Callahan's dark sense of humor as he discovers comics, and his time as a public speaker... At the heart of this film is a relationship between Donnie and John that is a joy to watch and so throughly engaging thanks to two of the year's best performances.

Joaquin Phoenix is on a roll, following another remarkable turn in "You Were Never Really Here" (review pending). Here he is yet again unrecognizable. Despite the film jumping back and forth in time, Phoenix has a way of capturing this character in so many stages... His low point during drunken benders shows a man hiding behind long hair and glasses and using the drink as a crutch. In the hospital, he carries himself so passively, and there are a few scenes in which his dialogue is barely whispered. It's a remarkable transformation, both as an actor and as a character progresses through healing. Similarly with Jonah Hill (who I would bet has a chance of winning a Supporting Actor Oscar this year). From the simple way he carries himself in meetings (weight rested casually on one leg) to a stunning final scene that sees both characters dive deep into some emotional stuff), this is surely one of our best actors working today.

I was not familiar with John Callahan prior to seeing the film, but it tackles his cartoons with an interesting approach involving multiple cutaways to crude animations. Van Sant isn't limited by the "expected" either, as the film is littered with various film techniques as old as film itself. Most films don't look like this, nor would many directors feel confident in presenting a story in such an 'out of the box' way. What can I say? It worked. It paints a picture of this man with broad strokes, and I can't help but commend it all the more for it's attempts. Even then, this is a film that features some of the best acting you're likely to see all year. You owe it to yourself to check it out. 

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (***1/2)

I couldn't help but smile at the sheer ridiculousness of MAMMA MIA 2, a sequel to a movie I found boring and tedious. All the same elements (mostly) are here, and in greater numbers. How could I enjoy a movie so blazenly full of cheese? I don't know what happened or when, but by the end credits, this silly little movie won me over in ways I wasn't expecting.

Whether or not you liked the original, it must be agreed upon that Meryl Streep's Donna lit up the screen. She was a trailblazing 70's disco mamma who slept around, drank, and partied with her daughter. What's not to love? This film quite shockingly finds our lead killed off somewhere in between film's 1 and 2. I would say that's a spoiler, but instead it seems to be more of a spoil. Why does this film show Meryl as though she is still part of the gang only for the film to quietly open with characters mourning her loss only a year ago. Problem 1: no Meryl Streep (be warned).

It is also evident that our screenwriters (including director Ol Parker) were working with limited resources - namely Abba songs - to create a captivating story with which to follow the remaining characters. What we are left with is a duel narrative in which Donna's daughter, Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is working to create a hotel on that beautiful Greek island in memory of her mother - - and a flashback story in which a young Donna (the charming Lily James) first discovers the island after graduation and goes on a spree of romantic one night stands (with three distinct men, no less). Where the original had hits like "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme" and "Super Troopers," this film has memorable songs like... "When I Kissed the Teacher" and "I Have a Dream..." Problem 2: lack of Abba hits.

But why does it work? This is an old-timey musical along the lines of "Music Man" or "Singin In The Rain" in which these characters sing for an unseen audience and perform elaborate choreography out of nowhere. It's saccharine in a way that something like "La La Land" wouldn't dream. When it misses the mark such sequences can be dreadful - but I was surprised to see so many songs that landed. Call me a sucker, but it was certainly fun to watch.

What we lack in Streep-yness we are made up for by an elongated Cher cameo as Sophie's grandmother. Flying in on a helicopter for the film's climax (again, a prominent feature in the trailers, though the surprise would have been more satisfying had we not known her starring role) to sing "Fernando" to a lost lover. It's by-the-book corn - a laughable musical number that still had my audience cheering (including myself).

The cast is a laugh, including the clever choices to portray our heroes in flashback (including Jessica Keenan Wynn as a young Christine Baranski - who may well be her doppleganger). While many of the songs might not be recognizable, you can't help but smile at the overall effect. Sure, the film has awkward edits and transitions, and the Sophie character is about as boring a lead as I can remember, but sometimes movies can be fun by being predictable. We know where it's heading, we know that each new scene will have someone burst into song, we get it. In a time when movies are pushing new boundaries and exploring dark, eye-opening stories, a silly flick like Mamma Mia is a good reminder that movies can be there just to have a good time. I had a great time.

Eighth Grade (****)

I've long been a fan of first-time director Bo Burnham, from his awkward teen piano routines that originated on youtube to his stand up comedy specials on Netflix and his burst into mainstream. To say he is funny doesn't begin to cover his range. To say his debut with EIGHTH GRADE is marvelous is a sign that he is surely in the right medium.

It's the last week of eighth grade as we meet our heroine, Kayla, a shy albeit sweet single child living with her father. Her time is spent as most tweens spend their time: face down in their phones, scrolling through instagram and selecting the best snapchat filter for their selfies. It's a social world that is almost entirely cut off from reality. When Kayla tries to talk to the popular girl and her friend, there's not a single exchange of glances. At the dinner table, Kayla further uses earphones to block out her dorky dad and his "boring" conversations.

The film uses a web series created by Kayla to bookend her journey - a small self-help youtube series that seemingly has no followers and definitely no views. She stumbles through her scripted talking points like "how to be yourself" and "how to be brave," while in reality she awkwardly stumbles by, fantasizing about the hot boys and cool girls that always seem to evade her friend circle. The film doesn't follow a linear plot so much as it charts Kayla's goals: get a best friend, get a boyfriend, start over fresh in high school.

I have to wrack my brain to try and think of other films that deal with middle schoolers, and even harder for ones that do it with such delicacy and grace. For an older generation, this film might reinforce the notion that kids these days are lazy, unmotivated, but for younger people this might be a sort of revelatory glance at what our culture has become and how silly it can all seem. I missed a few chances to view this film with a Burnham Q&A afterwards, and having finally seen it, I might ask him how he came to settle on a female hero, what his grade school life was like, and whether or not he was a social misfit as is Kayla. There is so much truth in the writing and in the way these kids talk to each other. Bo Burnham is either a gifted creator or is attuned to the current generational trends... Or both.

I admire Burnham's use of music to drive the narrative. There are jarring musical cues that reminded me of Alexander Payne's "Election" in how the sound of a familiar theme can invoke laughter. The opening titles are a whirlwind of electronic sounds that are so disjointed and jarring but ultimately feel right when fitting with the themes. The film also uses great visual language and cinematography to capture the mood of isolation among a crowded school. The camera slowly follows Kayla as she roams the halls, framing her as though she is all alone in her head. I was also struck by a scene in the backseat of a car that uses shadow and the unseen so effectively that it became one of the more tense moments in any movie this year.

Perhaps the film doesn't 100% understand how Kayla's mind works - after all she is a shy girl and yet time and again is seen confronting bullies and standing up for herself. It's nice to see a young girl so sure, but I had a hard time believing that she was inspired solely by her own youtube channel. We can feel Bo Burnham's rough style as he is developing a voice behind the camera, but with a debut so strong, I can't help but wonder what greatness he has coming next.

Let me just end on a positive note by touching on the characters of Kayla's father (Josh Hamilton) and Gabe, a boy she meets at a pool party. The film climaxes with a jaw-dropping scene next to a firepit in which Kayla's dad explains all the ways he loves his daughter. Sure, it's beautiful, but another review I read aptly compared it to Michael Stuhlbarg's final monologue in "Call Me By Your Name" just last year. I couldn't help but see the power in both speeches, scene-stealers in every way and all in the quietest of moments. Tell me that this isn't one of the great fathers in recent movies. In such confusing times for a child, having a parent who does nothing but offer their love and support is all the more beautiful. It's the film's best scene by far. Then compare it to this boy Kayla meets, a dorky boy named Gabe. At first, he is an awkward character who challenges her to see who can hold their breath longer, but by the end there is a first date over chicken nuggets that I found as magical and charming and adorable as any adolescent romance I can imagine. For a girl so caught up in her head, here are two guys who clearly see her as one in a million. In the end, that's all it takes. This is a wonderful movie.

*On a side note, this movie is rated R for reasons unknown. To think that this rating will prevent middle schoolers from seeing this movie is unfortunate. 

Three Identical Strangers (****1/2)

It's the craziest story ever told: a boy reunites with his long-lost twin during his first year in college. The story breaks across east coast newspapers, and then another boy recognizes the two as himself. The third boy realizes he is a triplet. The strange story of Eddie, Robbie, and David is covered with remarkable skill in THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS, a whimsical documentary that takes dramatic and sinister turns. It's one of the more thrilling movie-going experiences I have had all year.

If you watch the trailer (or read the intro), you get the premise. The movie begins with talking heads of the boys as they recount their unlikely rise to fame. From unknown to superstardom, the triplets begin to dress alike, do the television circuits, even cameo in a Madonna flick. We see their interactions in home videos, learn about it from their separate families... They describe their reunion as looking through a mirror. Not only did these boys look alike, but they had similar interests (gasp, they all smoked Marlboro's!).

It was about midway through the film when I began to realize the depths this filmmaker (director Tim Wardle) was willing to go. It turns out New York adoption agency that separated them had done so purposely, and indeed they did it to several identical sets of twins. Logically, the adoptive parents begin a hunt to the truth, and thus the real meat of the film comes to light. What begins as a human interest story quickly grows and expands into a tale of greater morality and the long-posed question: nature versus nurture.

It's hard to describe the film much further without bringing up key plot points - points that I enjoyed all the better for their surprise. Let me just tell you that there is an elderly psychologist in the film, a Swedish woman who was part of the team that separated the boys to begin with. It's all part of a larger study, but this woman's insight (her name I can't remember) into human nature hit me like a shock of lightning. She is one of the most captivating (perhaps evil? Perhaps not) characters in any movie this year. She gives a small speech near the end of the film that just about took my breath away.

This expanded take on the story of these triplets quickly became much more interesting to me than their actual story, although the film does continue to muse over their lives until the conclusion. There is a quick wrap-up in which the director hastily tries to settle that "nature/nurture" debate that felt a bit contrived, but otherwise, this is a fascinating movie that tumbles oh so deep down the rabbit hole. Like last year's "Tickled," this is a documentary that I didn't even know hit me until it was all done. While it's not perfect, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Here is living, breathing proof.

The Rider (*****)

THE RIDER is like some kind of poem. It's a beautiful ode to the often-forgotten about side of America. It's also as moving of a story as I can remember seeing in a while. While I didn't review it when I first saw it several months back, this is a movie that has been impossible to shake. I doubt there will be few films as powerful for the rest of the year.

Director Chloe Zhao is a Chinese-born filmmaker who only moved to America during her high school years. It's a stunning portrayal of the cowboy life, and her work is key to this film's ultimate power. The story follows Brady (Brady Jandreau) who is in recovery from a nasty accident following some bull riding. We learn he was quite a good rider, but a fall leaves him with a deep gash in his head and a persistent bout of seizures. He is told never to ride again. The story picks up in this lull - in which we learn more about Brady and his family (a sister with autism and a father who would rather his son not ride anymore). Rodeoing is a dangerous sport, and it's clear that Brady can not keep it up forever.

Brady is contrasted with his friend and mentor Lane. Lane isn't much older than Brady, but met disastrous results after a similar fall off a bull. He lives in a rehabilitation facility, wheelchair bound and barely able to speak. He communicates through rudimentary signs and moans. Perhaps Brady looks to Lane and sees what his future might become. But looking back at his accomplishments, I don't think Brady sees this life as having been wasted.

I found a lot of similarities to Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler," another story about lost dreams and a hero who returns to the ring again and again despite the immediate risk of harm. Where Mickey Rourke ultimately finds no purpose outside the ring, Brady is lucky to have friends, to have talent, and to still be alive. To make up for odd jobs, he works alongside horse wranglers to help tame wild steeds. Zhao films these scenes mostly in single shots, and only after the film did I learn that the actor himself is quite skilled. It's remarkable to watch a skinny, slight boy work such wonders on an animal so big and wild. These moments, coupled with some of the most beautiful tracking shots of horseback riding I have ever seen, help elevate the movie to something more profound.

And to continue on with Brady Blackburn, the actor... His father and sister star alongside in what I assume is their feature film debuts. Their chemistry is palpable and so much at the root of what makes this story so emotional. Where Brady is on screen in nearly every scene, never once do I get a sense that this is a man who is trying to act something that he is not. I don't want to use this film to praise another, but there is a closed-off sensibility to Brady that I recognized from Heath Ledger in "Brokeback Mountain." It's credit to Ledger, who managed to capture the deeper nature of a cowboy, and also credit to Blackburn, the actor who lives this life but still manages to bring a fully dramatic part to the role.

This film is so great in the quiet moments, like when Brady is breaking in these wild horses, or when he helps Lane relive the glory years on a makeshift horse. I expected this film to take a dark turn, and in fact up until the finale I was expecting something that would break my heart. It did, but for different reasons. Brady ultimately becomes this hero not because he pursues his dreams, but also realizes when to give up on those that are lost. Where Lane was a hero to him, so does he become this icon to a younger group of boys who want nothing more than to escape the poverty of their lives. Whether or not the rodeo is the best way to fulfill those desires isn't the point. For at least a couple seconds, it gives them something to hold on to.

Won't You Be My Neighbor? (*****)

WON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR is about as good as documentaries get. Maybe it's more impactful having grown up watch Fred Rogers on PBS, but deep down I think there is something much more magical to this quiet, unique man. This is a movie that gets it all right - painting a portrait of a man who only wanted to help children, and through flaws and obstacles, succeeded in becoming one of America's great citizens.

Morgan Neville directs this stunner, a filmmaker who won the Oscar a few years back for another crowd pleaser "20 Feet From Stardom." Why Mr Rogers hasn't been a focus of Hollywood yet is understandable: here was an awkward man with a quiet voice who talked to children as equals. His television program "Mr Roger's Neighborhood" was at one time the longest-running show in TV history, and as one producer reminds us, it had everything going against it. Low production values, cheap sets, an unlikely star...

I was most amazed by the behind-the-scenes peeks we got of the show, and of Fred Rogers himself. There is a thoroughly captivating black and white interview with him sitting by a piano, describing his thought processes on making a show for children in the first place. He talks with such energy, passion for his beliefs... Who filmed it is a mystery, but it provides a candid look at a person we mostly know for zipping up sweaters and changing shoes. The movie mostly follows the chronological timeline of the show, from its first few weeks all the way to his retirement. We meet the show's crew, many of whom were beefy, tattooed men who seem to have no reason to exist in the same realm as Mr Rogers at all. And yet every interview reminds us of the same thing: here was a genuinely caring man.

The behind-the-scenes footage are a great insight, but the more beautiful moments come when we see Mr Rogers actually interacting with the children he came to meet. Rogers became somewhat of a celebrity on the east coast, and we see him having small meetings with a group of children and their parents, with mom and dad filming it all from the back row. We see how gently Fred spoke with these kids, how he used puppets to access their world. There are a lot of cynical people who might view this man as somewhat creepy, but there is such a genuine goodness that radiated from this man that it's hard not to fall in love with him all over again.

Go to this movie if only to be reminded that the world can always use a dose of kindness. In today's political and global climate of fear and divide, this is a wonderfully charming movie about the little things that make all the difference. Fred Rogers certainly didn't set out to change the world, and by the end when PBS called him back to film some segments regarding 9/11, it might even seem like he had given up hope altogether. But keep watching, and we see Mr Rogers give a commencement speech at a college where numerous adults approach him and explain what he meant to them as a child. Or when he filmed a segment with a disabled boy on the program and later reunited with him at the Emmy's 20 years later. It's a tearjerking experience to see someone so kind and so selfless. When I saw this movie in the first few weeks of its opening, the theater was sold out - audience members ranging from children to senior citizens. It was an electrifying experience to watch it with a crowd. Certainly Mr Rogers might have felt like he could have done more by the end of his life, but look at the generations his work has spanned and the joy he brought to so many. To call him inspiring would certainly be underselling his successes.

RBG (***1/2)

RBG isn't a particularly bad documentary, but nor is it some piece of revelatory cinema. Our filmmakers begin their story by broadcasting the comments of brash conservative pundits who call Ginsburg "evil" and "UnAmerican" and the like. From there, it's a movie that rarely lands on solid footing and instead relies on the emotional tug of a real human story to make its mark.

Yes, the movie begins by ominously using the words of RBG's critics who make her sound like some rabid curse upon the American Supreme Court. Hard cut to a frail, 84-year old woman in the gym, lifting weights and doing a set of pushups. We can begin to see her appeal. What makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg so intriguing is perhaps just that: her slight physical stature compared to her towering legal achievements over the course of her professional life. The documentary then begins to flash back - first to Ginsburg as a little girl, and then at Harvard and Columbia where she raised a daughter, cared for her sick husband, all while achieving remarkable grades among the top of her class.

What I like about this film is its portrayal of women in America, the challenges someone like Ginsburg faced as she became a lawyer, and once she was a successful professor, the legal issues that she worked to overcome for gender equality across the country. What I found most effective was the way our filmmakers isolated single legal cases that Ginsburg took on - many of which she argued before the Supreme Court (and before she herself became a member). Using audio clips of her orations as well as interviews from the plaintiffs, it's remarkable to see how far this country has come in such a short amount of time.

Of course, the film feels sloppy, unguided, and the finale is something that feels less like a conclusion and more like the remaining bits of film tacked on to the end. What is this film trying to tell us? Certainly that Ginsburg is now one of the more liberal Justices on the court in a time when Trumpism is threatening a more conservative array of laws for decades to come. That Ginsburg, albeit frail, is still working her hardest and has no foreseeable plans to retire. We meet her grandchildren, one of whom is a lawyer, and her children (who called their mother a bad cook and yet a firmly loving woman). We learn about her husband, a wise-cracking tax attorney from New York. Their relationship, while odd, is perfectly captured in a final note written from husband to wife and read by Ruth herself.

This would have been a more powerful film if the story focused entirely on the legal cases that Ginsburg took on. Documentaries have the potential to be just as engaging as any fiction film, as long as they are told in a captivating way. Use the brilliance of this woman's arguments and dissents in order to show us what kind of woman she really is. We don't need a lot of talking heads and clips of SNL sketches mocking RBG as a wise-cracking octogenarian. We get it. Millenials love her because she is progressive - the film doesn't need to show us countless glossy-eyed teens who eagerly wait to meet Ruth like she's a rockstar. It still must be said that Julie Cohen and Betsy West, our directors, certainly know how to make an effective feature. However, when compared to the other big summer documentary "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" that tackles its subject with much more gusto, it's not hard to see the brilliance of RBG the woman, but the short-comings of the craft.