Avengers: Infinity War (****)

It is with no subtlety that I express a "meh" attitude regarding the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The ambition of the studios seems so bold, so risky, to interweave countless stories into one centralized superhero universe. We then realize that no matter the film, the studio invariably rakes in the box office returns, and we discover that these films all build to the Infinity War (part 1), which for all its complexities and characters, impressed me as a movie that ultimately took some much-needed risk.

The story is set up fairly simply: an evil alien being (or whatever he is) named Thanos (Josh Brolin) seeks the Infinity Stones. They have been introduced in past MCU films, here and there, their importance often glanced over. To own one stone is to be a master of a particular aspect of the universe. To own all 6 stones entitles the user to ultimate domination and evil leadership for all time, or whatever. We meet Thanos, this beastly 8-foot being already in possession of 2 stones. Against him are Thor, brother Loki, Hulk, and an assortment of other heroes. The next 2 stones are on earth, so Hulk must warn the group about the impending danger.

On earth, we meet (or reunite) with the likes of Dr. Strange, Tony Stark, Spider-Man, and then 10 minutes later we will meet more of the disassembled Avenger crew (a result of previous movies, I would assume). These introductions last what seems like an hour, as the plot begins to thicken and the heroes are literally united to fight Thanos across all reaches of the galaxy. The pairings of these characters is quite remarkable as well: to see Dr Strange and Iron Man babysit Spider-Man, while Thor works with the Guardians of the Galaxy and who he believes to be the ship's captain - "the rabbit."

While most might groan at the running time (2.5 hours on the dot), I must admit the film clicks by at an enjoyable rate an culminates in what is quite a clever little battle on Wakanda alongside Black Panther, Scarlet Witch, Vision, War Machine, Captain America, and so on and so forth. I groaned that we never see the entire cast united in one grand scene, where all characters can mix and mingle like some social hour the likes of which we have never seen. What we do get, though, is quite an eye-opening ensemble that must rank among the most impressive casts in recent memory. It's shining jewel, though, is Josh Brolin as Thanos. He's a menacing presence, dwarfing all the Avengers by several heads. We learn his background (including the relationship between him and his adoptive daughter, Gamora) and the reasons he seeks the stones. Like all great villains, he is humanized to the point where we almost understand why he wants to eliminate half of all living beings, and menacing enough that his physical presence had me question "how the hell can they beat this guy?" While the CGI of Thanos oftentimes hints at the uncanny valley, I nevertheless was in awe of a superhero movie getting the bad guy so right.

The ending (especially for all those die-hard fans) might seem dark, but then we remember that this is the lowest point for our heroes. It's "The Empire Strikes Back" or more similarly "Harry Potter 7.1" I admired the filmmakers for taking the story to such an extreme, though we realize that the good guys must win in the end, and that the rest of the story seems to have very little room to move forward. Like last year's "Last Jedi," the end made me wonder what else is left to do?? For all that I dislike Marvel for it's one-liners, quips, and overall light-hearted comedic chops (aren't I a downer?), Infinity War concluded in a way that genuinely felt substantive, not something Tony Stark can mock over a fresh shawarma. Unlike the previously mentioned Star Wars installment, I must admit that I am genuinely excited to see what next year's conclusion will bring. Despite this film's density (and boy is it dense), this is a job well done.

A Quiet Place (****)

There has been a horror Renaissance going on in recent years, a blink-and-you-miss-it run of great indie flicks that have reinvented and honored the classic genre. From "The Babadook" to "It Follows" and "The Witch" to "Get Out," John Krazinski's A QUIET PLACE doesn't necessarily rank among the best, but it's certainly a damn good time.

It's sometime in the soon-to-be future and the world is overrun with some form of sadistic creature that hunts with sound. Like the Demogorgon from "Stranger Things," these monsters feature no eyes and instead rely on a keen sense of sound to hunt their prey. Yes, sound, as in any noise louder than say a cough. Make a sound, and one of these beings sprints out and kills you in moments. We learn the rules (as good horror must do) in the film's opening scenes, and immediately the audience is thrust into a world of real consequence.

The story is of a family (named in the credits but I cannot recall their names mentioned in dialogue) led by Krazinski and his wife, Emily Blunt (also his off-screen wife). Together they raise a couple of kids, one of whom is deaf, and they work to maneuver life on a remote farmland with no fewer than 3 of these monsters living in close proximity. It's been over a year, as the opening titles tell us, and it's clear that this family is as resourceful as folks could be in this situation.

The conflict. The mother and father, as smart as they are, find themselves pregnant with a baby on the way any day. This lends itself to the film's most stunning sequence in which the mother's water breaks just as the house is being surveyed by the creatures. It's not a scene to be spoiled, but simply marveled at. I can't remember a movie using labor as such an effective element of plot, and boy would you be hard-pressed to find someone who has delivered a baby in utter silence. Another scene shows the father and his son fishing along a river, and then learning that things like water can mask their own voices from the creatures. The film has many moments of set up and pay off, mostly to great effect, and the result is a movie that commands the silence of any who are watching.

The film isn't without its faults, mostly on a concept level. I could think of 100 ways this family would have been killed long ago - a sneeze, or a stomach ache, or any number of ways that we can inadvertently make noise. We learn there are neighbors in remote homes that have also survived, signaled by a nightly fire. It makes sense for those survivors to distance themselves from each other, but what is the long-term plan here? The movie offers some sort of resolution in the final minutes that has a way to feel ploying and slightly reaching. I think this movie is effective in the way it uses a lush soundscape and strong characters (Emily Blunt in particular is stunning here), but applying the rules of logic makes plot holes all the more apparent. This is certainly an enjoyable movie, best seen in a crowded theater. Is it a revolutionary addition to the horror genre? I don't think it makes enough noise.

Isle of Dogs (*****)

I will be the first to admit I am a great fan of Wes Anderson. I can't think of another director today who's films essentially create their own genre. It takes only a few seconds to recognize the man's style - with its candy-colored mise-en-scene, the symmetry of shots, black humor, and dire situations. For all that is is, ISLE OF DOGS is not Anderson's most ambitious film, but I can't find a whole lot at fault to call it anything other than spectacular.

Isle of Dogs ("I love dogs?") is set in the not too distant Japanese future in which an outbreak of dog flu allows the Major of Megasaki City to banish all dogs to a nearby island that is also used as the city's dump. An opening scene depicts the passage of the law, the scientists who fight for funding to find a cure, etc. Compared to a lot of other Anderson films, there is a clear front-loading of exposition that sets up the story, our heroes, and uses no less than 3 translators and subtitles to get the point across.

Not long later, we meet our canine heroes, led by a stray named Chief (Bryan Cranston). He and his band of pets (all with appropriately strong named) encounter a young boy named Atari, the Mayor's ward who has stolen a small aircraft to go hunting for his long-lost dog, Spots. We recall Spots from the film's opening: a gentle white dog who is dropped onto Trash Island in a locked cage with no key. He had originally been given to the boy as a means of protection, and the two wear some sort of translator headset that allows for a modicum of communication. Chief, despite hesitation, agrees to assist the boy in his hunt.

The movie simultaneously follows those initial scientists on the mainland as they research a cure, and a young girl named Tracy (Greta Gerwig) who works to uncover the plot of the government to suppress information and ensure these dogs are brought back. Along the way, she begins to fall in love with Atari and his rebellious nature - of course being broadcast across TVs nationwide. I might have thought some of the story was dark for a "kids movie," only to remember some of the more horrific moments in the brilliant "Fantastic Mr Fox" or the undertones of war and genocide felt throughout The Grand Budapest Hotel.

I couldn't help but smile from opening credits to the final black screen. There is something so charming about this style of filmmaking that I can't help but believe it to be infectious. The animation style, which seems so perfectly fit with Wes Anderson's aesthetic, has a genuine charm that most computer-generated movies today seem to polish over. The individual hairs on each animal move with such imperfections, yet you can't help but be amazed at how much effort was clearly put into every frame. I have heard some criticisms about the movie's setting of Japan, about it's portrayal of the Japanese people, about casting white actors who speak English as the native dogs, etc. Where some of these complaints felt valid, I have to further the argument as to whether or not American dogs might not have English accents, or speak in a native Swahili dialect with their own canine intonations. It's a silly complaint, all the more silly for it revolving around cartoon dogs.

I can't state definitively that this is the quintessential Wes Anderson movie (I still feel partial to "Grand Budapest" and maybe even "Rushmore" for personal reasons), but for all it is worth, this is such a marvelous movie from beginning to end. It has been 4 years since the last Wes Anderson film was released, and with such quality as this, I wouldn't mind waiting even longer for his next movie. In terms of originality I can't think of many filmmakers as consistent as this.

Ready Player One (***)

The more I was left to brew over READY PLAYER ONE, one of Spielberg's few "popcorn" movies in recent memory, the more I felt disappointed. What began as a whirlwind adventure ultimately boiled down to something more or less recognizable as a standard movie with cookie-cutter characters and a pretty bow on top in the end. Despite visuals that oftentimes are stunning, I wonder about the actual substance here - is there any at all?

The story is set in the near-future (no less than 25 years from now... Go figure) in which a Steve Jobs-type gamer named Halliday (the ever-talented Mark Rylance) has developed a virtual reality world called "The OASIS" in which regular people can escape the burden of slum-living and explore a world with very few limitations. This fares well for Wade Watts AKA Parzival (Tye Sheridan), a poor kid living in Columbus, Ohio with her drudging aunt and live-in boyfriend. The story begins with Halliday's death and his revelation that hidden in the game are three keys to be discovered. The first person to find all three will claim ownership of the OASIS corporation and all it's worth: somewhere in the neighborhood of half a trillion dollars. This becomes the goal of large gaming companies (the villains) who hope to win the prize and begin charging fees for OASIS gamers.

It's been five years and no gamer has yet to find a single key. Parzival, our hero, goes through Halliday memory vaults (a kind of mind museum) endlessly, and combs through clues and hints to try and discover more about Halliday, the man, and where he might have hidden those "easter eggs." The movie sets up the real world in a brief but tactile sequence in which we would understand why everyday people from young children to elder parents would seek solace in the game. Gamers can acquire currency, weapons, power, and fame, but like all games if they die they lose everything they have worked for. Think of it like the Matrix without the real consequences of death and injury.

The world of the OASIS is remarkable in the way its entirely digital. Everyone down to the characters (Parzival looks like some sort of Final Fantasy creation) is a visual effect, and at times it's hard not to make Avatar comparisons in the way this film so fully immerses you in the world. One of the first set pieces is a car chase through some downtown setting in which racers are attacked by no less than a T-Rex and King Kong. Oh, and Percival rides around in a vintage DeLorean.  Later in the game, we get a glimpse of the Iron Giant, the Cyclops from the "7th Voyage of Sinbad," the Millennium Falcon, and a complete recreation of the hotel from "The Shining" (a scene so well-made that my audience cheered when we first saw a glimpse of the Overlook Hotel). The more the film goes, the more we realize this is a fan-service extravaganza. References to 1980's pop culture runs rampant, and it became clear that this is a film aimed more to please geeks than anything else. In reality - why would a futuristic world be so heavily engrossed in such a specific, retro period of time?

For all I was wowed by the film's look, in the end, we are given flat characters that made me want to do anything but root for them. Tye Sheridan, who has been very good in other films, is a standard kid who has to be one of Spielberg's most forgettable heroes I can remember. Throw in a love interest and a couple gamer friends who band together to save the day (how curious they all live within miles of each other, by the way?) and we can see the classic sentimentality of Spielberg with less heart than we might come to expect. In no way is this a 'bad' film. In fact I think last year's The Post likely suffered as a result of time spent on this more ambitious project. READY PLAYER ONE is where we see the director's real chops come into play. In the end? It's sad to say this might be more of a forgettable movie than I was led to believe. If you don't care about the characters, than no amount of special effects and pop culture references could ever save even the simplest story. As big as this movie aims to be, how funny that it ultimately collapses under its own weight?