Battle of the Sexes (***1/2)

The 1973 tennis match between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King seems like a triviality by today's standards; an anecdotal story you might causally discuss over coffee and then change the subject to something more politically charged. The idea that a man would challenge any female (a 55 year old man, no less) to prove that "male is the superior sex" is such a silly premise, and yet sets the basis for a well-crafted and intriguing peek into history.

The movie is really about King (Emma Stone, last year's Oscar winner) and her struggle for gender equality for female tennis players. The film opens with her winning the World Championship and then learning that the next contest will pay female players only one eighth of what the men are making. Despite Billy selling just as many tickets as any man would, tennis is simply more exciting to watch when there's some testosterone. She withdraws her friends from the Tennis Association and then soon picks up new sponsorship from a cigarette manufacturer. Her mentor Gladys Heldman (a strangely-cast Sarah Silverman) is always present for some wise quip.

We then meet Bobby (Steve Carell), a washed up tennis player who, despite being squishy and round around the edges, seems to hold to the belief that he is still living the glory days of his youth. He gambles with everyone from his son to his therapist, and when his wife forces him to return a newly-purchased Rolls Royce, he instead takes it to the casino to gamble some more. One of his friends toys with the idea of selling tickets to see him matched against the reigning champ, Billy Jean, and imagines the money such a pair could rake in. We all but see the dollar signs in Bobby's eyes.

So goes the film. I was not aware that this "battle of the sexes" was the second match after Bobby easily defeated Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee) in the premiere face off. It was this defeat that sparked Billy Jean's urge to pair off against the misogynist. Spoiler alert: she wins in the end. I understand that this was historical accuracy, but wouldn't the film have been more effective if they omitted this initial match, and instead gave Billy Jean more of a drive to prove womens' might from the start? By my reckoning, the score as the credits role is MEN: 1, WOMEN: 1. Sure, Billy Jean wins, but don't forget that so did Bobby.

The film is effective for Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris' direction (you remember them from their debut with "Little Miss Sunshine") and a convincing cast. At times the film is burdened by Billy Jean's relationship to her hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and the conflict it created with her husband, Larry King (not that Larry King, FYI). Later in life we know Billy Jean for being a champion of LGBT rights alongside that of women, but the film is almost weighted down too heavily with this forbidden romance that distracts from the more entertaining film that streams through the rest of the script. Steve Carell is ever good (as he always is) at creating unique characters with just as many virtues as they have faults. Emma Stone, likewise, brings great conviction to her acting and continues to display a wonderful range on screen. BATTLE OF THE SEXES is cute, simple, and slight. In the year of #MeToo, it also feels all the more timely.

Molly's Game (*****)

I do not understand the concept of poker, and the few times I have attempted the game I was left confused and irritated. No matter here. One doesn't need to be a poker expert to understand the high stakes at play in MOLLY'S GAME, the directorial debut of Aaron Sorkin. One neither needs to know Sorkin's name beforehand to understand that this is a great, timely film.

The story of that of Molly Bloom (Jessica Chastain), a former professional skier who left the sport due to unforeseen circumstances outlined in great detail in the film's remarkable opening sequence. From there, this scholar must grapple with her next steps in life: school? Time off? What will Molly do? She ultimately moves to Los Angeles and through perhaps fate and chance she lands the gig of a bookkeeper in a celebrity poker tournament - a small group of 10 or so millionaires who gather weekly with a $10,000 buy-in.

Molly finds the game quite alluring, and she begins making a generous income almost exclusively based on the tips of these clients (a featured one is played by Michael Cera and is referred to as "Player X," a composite of celebs like Leo and Tobey (we allege)). From here, she climbs the ranks, opens her own club, and begins to increase the buy-ins to include the likes of Russian mob and billionaire art dealers. This is a story as much about the downfall as it is about the entrepreneurial spirit - and seeing Molly Bloom climb the ladder of social class is simply wondrous.

And so goes the film: fragmented timelines jump back and forth between the present in which Molly faces criminal charges, and the past, in which she learns the ropes and proves to be quite a capable businessman. The structure and very basis of the story reminds us of Aaron Sorkin's arguable masterpiece The Social Network in which great young minds come face to face with the law amidst pure creation and drive. The script for "Molly's Game" is no less accomplished, and perhaps might step a rung above Network to become a movie as much about wits as anything else.

Jessica Chastain can do no wrong. Her Molly is aloof, quiet, reserved, and an ever-changing mystery that we as the audience want to solve. She is not without heart, and her scenes with her lawyer, Jaffey (Idris Elba) are both pleasing to the ear and the eyes. This is a great cast. As much as the film explores what makes Molly tick, we still leave the theater asking as many questions about who she is than we had before the film began. Sorkin doesn't seek to tell us what happened, rather shows us the wild odyssey as it unfolded. Nothing more.

For a first-time director, Sorkin balances all the pages of his dense screenplay with a mastery that few directors could match. The movie flies by at 2.5 hours and never once was I bored. With each new moment comes a rapturous addition to an already complex story, and the miracle is that I wanted to keep going. Yes, it's about gambling, and money, and misogyny, but it also has more heart than any Sorkin film has in the past. We see Molly's father (a surprising Kevin Costner) who always pushed her for greatness but grappled with being a good father. Chastain and Costner share a final scene in New York's Central Park that is simply flawless. Later, Idris Elba spells out the themes in a passionate speech on the behalf of Molly who faces years in prison if convicted. There is a particularly careful balance between passion and calculation in our heroes, and there is where I found the film so damned appealing.

Many will argue the film's run time or it's lack of sophisticated directing. I will call every criticism an outright sham. This is a marvelous, highly thrilling and altogether wonderful film that tells us a wild story that is largely true. It's not something you could make up. I won't spoil the ending, but I was left with an intense fascination to learn what happened to Molly Bloom, to ask her about her rise and fall as a business founder from a woman's perspective, any regrets, and any dreams going forward. Nothing is quite spelled out in black and white, and it's that distinct gray area in "Molly's Game" that offered so much more than what was written on the page. In the end, I only wanted to dive deeper into this strange abyss and find out more.

Downsizing (**)

I have an immense respect for writer/director Alexander Payne, who has made some films that are very close to perfect. I am not shocked that he has taken a stumble in his latest film, but I am deeply disappointed in it. DOWNSIZING seemed flawed from the beginning, offering audiences some sort of backwards comedy trailer, and then delivering a final film that ditched humor in an attempt to find a deeper meaning. On all fronts, this movie misses the mark.

Paul is a man (played by a dull Matt Damon) who lives in a world in which European scientists invented a procedure called "downsizing" in an attempt to save the planet from pollution. It's a logical idea, told in many steps in the film's opening sequence. Cut to 10 years later, and the world has seen 7% of the population shrink down to no more than 5 inches tall. Smaller size means adjusted income, and Paul and his wife's (Kristin Wiig) modest $100,000 net worth gets then tens of millions in a football field-sized city called Leisureland.

The trailer tells us that Wiig chickens out, and leaves Paul with a divorce settlement that essentially loses him his entire fortune. From a 4-story mansion, Paul is reduced to a small apartment, working a telemarketing job (I'm sure little people do phone jobs since it's one of the only professions that could still earn a living among the "big" people) and essentially losing hope in his decision to shrink down. In typical Payne-ian style, Damon meets a host of small town characters with familiar smiles and small town dialogue.

The film takes several unexpected (potentially unwanted) turns beginning with Paul meeting a Vietnamese activist named Ngoc Lan Tran (Hong Chau), who was downsized as punishment in her home country and then sent to the US in a TV box. She has lost her foot, struggles as a cleaning lady, but Paul helps her with his physical therapy background. A romance slowly blossoms. Also present is Paul's upstairs neighbor Dusan (played by the ever-charming Christoph Waltz), a playboy who hosts extravagant parties but then in the last half of the film somehow is a respected friend of scientists and global thinkers?

That last half of the film, let me tell you... Paul and Ngoc and Dusan take a boat trip to Norway to meet with the inventor of the shrinking process only to learn that pollution will soon wipe out the human population in a matter of years. The Norway colony has tunneled deep into the mountains for sanctuary during the impending apocalypse, and intend to live in the hills for 8,000 years before repopulating the earth. What began as a simple comedy with some interesting ideas soon took a dive into pandering, heavy handed social commentary that was neither welcomed or logical. In the last half of the film we continue to meet new cooky characters, learn major plot points, and then find out that Paul is a character with no sense to him at all. I had no idea what Paul's motivations were, and in the film's 'climactic moment,' I had no idea why he changed his mind at all. Poor writing, poor editing, and poor planning.

I liked Hong Chau a lot and the way she lit up the screen about midway through when the film began to lag. Even she was unable to keep this picture afloat, a movie that I sense will soon be forgotten and regarded as a dark period in Alexander Payne's career. I don't know what went wrong. There were so many questions I had. We learn there is a net over Leisureland to keep out birds and insects... Has an insect ever killed a human? I would want to know. Another throwaway character mentions that little people should not have the right to vote, since they essentially have their own economy inside their communities and they do nothing to contribute to the larger country's finances...  Again, a story element I would have much preferred to explore. In the end, "Downsizing" is a mess of ideas and messages, none of which are particularly entertaining.

Good Time (*****)

At a brisk 1.5 hour runtime, GOOD TIME is a visceral adrenaline rush of fear, suspense, paranoia, and corruption. The pace is swift, and indeed it feels as though any minute our heroes (and the audience) might become too overwhelmed and drown in the chaos of it all. This is a great movie, one that slipped by me in the crammed rush of Fall releases. How pleased I am to have seen it, and how restorative such a film is for my ever-growing doubt that good movies are increasingly hard to come by.

Directors Benny Safdie (a costar) and Josh Safdie tell a simple story in seemingly real time. We meet two brothers, Connie (Robert Pattinson, who is brilliant) and Nick (Safdie), who is mentally challenged. The film opens with a remarkable scene in which Nick meets with a therapist to discuss his cognition. Nick isn't necessarily present, and we sense his oafish personality and oblivious nature to anything related to subtlety. This is important to know when he meets with his brother, a low-life criminal who robs banks $65,000 at a time and brings his brother along to learn the ropes. Where Nick is passive, Connie is drive, always thinking two steps ahead and always with his brother's interest in mind (even if those interests involve criminality).

The story here begins with that bank robbery and concludes in a mesmerizing descent through the darkest parts of New York City and all the filth that comes with it. The plot is so specifically crafted that describing it doesn't really add to any sort of 'critique.' Just know that each scene is there with a purpose, and the writers throw so many curve balls that the story becomes a genuinely thrilling one to behold. What we know is that Nick gets arrested and Connie wants to bail him out. The search for $10,000 leads us from a hospital shuttle to a theme park and the depths of an apartment high rise. There is so much to see, to take in, and I was continually fascinated by Pattinson as our hero, a great actor in a role of desperation and tact.

The film is crafted with a certain flair for the retro styles of the 1980's. Neon lights litter the screen with candy color, and the score is synth inspired broodingness (composed by Oneohtrix Point Never). I would assume the film is set in modern day. What a clever and inventive way to tell this story. Our directing brothers, the Safdies, clearly draw inspiration from the works of some great filmmakers, and their craft is undeniable. This is a film that aims high and misses not a single mark along the way. On the surface level we have a standard thriller of desperate men, but just below the surface is another story of cunning and resourcefulness. Connie is by no means a good man according to the law, but his entire motivation in this film is that of selflessness, despite how flawed and warped his intentions are.

The film works for its craft - razor tight edits, a compelling score, a distinct visual language, and an earthy feel that immerses us in the world. We have some of the year's best performances in Robert Pattinson and Benny Safdie, each playing the opposite side of the same coin. Safdie in particular is a complete transformation from what we see in interviews to this instantly recognizable supporting character. It's a story of love and drive despite the moralities of all involved being absent. I can't think of a more satisfying thriller this year.

I, Tonya (***)

I, TONYA began with a promise and sputtered to a half about midway through. I admired a lot about this movie, especially that leading performance by Margot Robbie, but in the end all I can offer is tepid praise. The film feels inspired by David O Russell, with moving cameras, fluid editing, and a barrage of narration and inner monologue. What kind of story was director Craig Gillespie trying to tell here?

Most of you probably remember the story (or heard of it) regarding the 1994 Winter Olympics and the incident with Tonya Harding (Robbie) and Nancy Kerrigan. What began as arguably innocent blackmail and intimidation led to a girl's knee being injured with a retractable baton and Harding's skating career forever altered. Now it feels like a fun bit of trivia - a novelty story that makes the newspapers for its strange cast of characters and setting. Today even more so: the film presents the saga of Tonya Harding a an enigmatic mystery that few (if any) can grasp the deeper truth at hand.

The story, told in flashback throughout Tonya's life (standard for any biopic), and then leads to her competition in two Olympic games. What set her apart was her upbringing, raised among the trees and just a step above trailer trash. Her mother (the funny Allison Janney) is a wretched creature who pushes her daughter for no other reason than to see her fall off the metaphorical cliff. Her husband, Jeff (Sebastian Stan) is at first supportive of her ice skating but then resorts to routine beating and spousal abuse. First abused by mom and then her husband, Tonya remarks "maybe this is how people show their love."

The movie delves into the weird 1980's dynamics that led up to "the incident" that caught the world by surprise. About midway through the picture, I began to wonder to what end this movie was made? Harding is not vilified, but the story itself doesn't always feel substantial enough to create a 2 hour movie. At that midway mark, I began to realize that this film's only real goal was to show "the incident" and then everything else became filler by proxy. This is a surprisingly boring movie to watch at many parts, especially considering the levels of comedy, shocks, and vulgarities.

Margot Robbie is serviceable as Harding, and her transformation has been compared to someone like Charlize Theron in "Monster." Nonsense. Robbie gets the dialogue and appearance right, but the transformation doesn't really shock us until the close to the end, just before her Olympic performance, where she smears red blush on her face and smiles through the tears. Her vile mother, played with a lot of fun by Janney, is mostly one-note and doesn't often step outside the standards of cursing, smoking, and giving her daughter the evil eye.

The ice skating scenes are questionable for their use of facial replacement CGI (we understand that no actor could learn to skate so well for a film) which is more often than not jarring. I don't know. I, TONYA was funny for what it was, and then it slowly became repetitive, monotonous, and less exhilarating. Sometimes you watch a movie and feel like you are actively involved. You might lean forward with worry for the main characters, and hope they survive. I felt a curiously opposite emotion here. Few characters are likable, and fewer moments stick in my mind now having seen the movie. I wasn't joining with the story, I was simply witnessing something on screen.