Amy (2015) (*****)

Sometimes it's a great experience to rewatch a movie, one you haven't seen for years. That's what I did recently with AMY, the brilliant documentary from 2015 that justly won that year's Academy Award. The story of Amy Winehouse and her tragic life is so well realized that I watched it again the following day. It's that powerful. There have been many music documentaries made, but rare is it to find one so thoroughly engrossing.

It's the style that sets this film apart. Asif Kapadia is the director, steady-handed and clear in his vision. We see Amy in her early years, her break into music, and her spiral down into a world of drugs and alcohol. What makes this film so memorable, so dreamlike, is the footage of Winehouse herself, shot after shot of home videos, still photos, digital camera selfies... We hear talking heads (as you would) of Amy's family and collaborators as they talk about the person they knew, and yet we never see their faces. It's only ever Amy. So it goes throughout the entirety of our story. It's clear that the filmmakers loved this musician, and in a way it should be overkill to show nothing but one woman for over 2 hours on screen. Never once are we bored.

As a subject matter, Winehouse has a Shakespearean quality to her. She achieved startling highs and lows before her death at the age of 27. With a beehive that made her instantly recognizable and a voice that harkened back to bubblegum ballads of the 1950's, it's no wonder that her talent shone so bright in the few years she was alive and famous. Despite her persona as a "bad girl" and an aura of recklessness, here was nonetheless a woman of immense gravitas in her work. When discussing her after her death, we hear Tony Bennett declare that she was one of the greatest of all time.

The music that fills the movie is also something that we instantly recall. The lyrics flash on the screen as we hear song after song from Back to Black, Winehouse's only second (and last) studio album. It's the album that won her 5 Grammys in a single night. Though her voice is so assured as an audio track, the footage of her filming and recording is just as startling. Here is a shy girl who only wants to get it right. When finishing a verse, she laughs to herself at how dark the lyrics sound. Music was her passion. Everything else was second.

We meet Amy's father and husband, two men who had an incredible amount of control over her life, two men who the filmmakers seem to want to accuse of bringing about her untimely death. The director stops short of pointing fingers, but we understand what is happening. These are two characters in themselves. Her father, a heavyset man who acts as a manager of sorts, 'leases' Amy out to paparazzi and the press in order to bring in extra cash. Her husband, a tattooed Londoner with a pension for drugs, was clearly adored by Amy and brought out aspects of addiction and drugs that are so often associated with the 'bad' parts of fame.

And the ending, perhaps the most heartbreaking finale to a movie that I can recall. With Amy's face impressed in our mind, we learn of the morning of her death when she was found with a blood alcohol content of 0.4. Days before she had called her childhood friends in order to try and mend a broken friendship. Amy could see her addiction to alcohol was pushing her loved ones away, but it only took a final night of mistakes to end it all. The police casually wheel out a stretcher with a bodybag on full display. Her fans outside are caught off guard. We see images of her funeral 3 days later, and the great sense of loss that was felt by not only her family, but the world.

The film loves its subject in a way that not many documentaries can lay claim. By the end we begin to love her too, even if the music or lifestyle of Amy Winehouse isn't our favorite. The greatness of AMY as a film is that it cuts deep to the heart of a human being. Yes, she was flawed, suffered problems and achieved fame too fast, but she was nonetheless a person who has hopes and dreams. To see a film that can convey such a truth with nothing more than home videos and candid interviews is startling. There is no new ground covered by these filmmakers. What they do instead is simply rewrite how a story can be told.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (***1/2)

In no less than 15 years the cinemas have seen 6 "Spider-Man" movies and 3 reboots. Three reboots. I can see the reasoning from studio logistics. Spider-man=money.

We know that Marvel needs to incorporate the character into its cinematic universe. Peter Parker is too notable to leave out. I'm happy to admit that for once they got the character right (according to the logistics of him being a sophomore in high school). The movie itself is just as predictable as we might expect from Marvel.

My main groan for this film was having to sit through a third 'origin story,' that narrative in which the awkward and dorky Peter Parker gets bit by a spider, learns to use his powers, makes a suit, and fight a bad guy in the end. Surprisingly, the movie follows the Marvel narrative (after Spidey's debut in the Civil War movie from last year). Parker's already in the suit, he's fighting neighborhood crimes. He knows what to do... Kind of. The movie pairs Peter with Tony Stark (Robery Downey Jr, of course) as Stark mentors the young boy and grooms him to become one of the Avengers. Peter goes about classes just admitting he has an internship with the famed billionaire. His classmates gossip about who their favorite Avenger is. It's funny that in this cinematic universe, the superheroes aren't godly beings that swoop down from heaven. They're discussed the same way we might talk about the President or a famous sports star.

Peter's main high school friend is a lumpy boy named Ned (Jacob Batalon), a nerdy kid who geeks out when he happens to discover his buddy is the famed superhero. He's even more thrilled when they plan on having Spider-Man attend a house party and give Ned a fist bump. They're in high school. There's a sense of shyness and awkward social skills that these two boys have. It feels real. Behind the costume, Peter is still a young boy trying to prove himself to the world. Sometimes even the crooks can see through the rouse.

We have a somewhat clunky villain in Michael Keaton as the Vulture. He's a construction, blue-collar guy who was hired as clean up after the citywide destruction we saw in the first Avengers movie. On the side, he steals alien parts and sets up an underground weapons hub where he sells crystal technology to thugs in and around New York. One thing leads to another and Spider-Man discovers his scheme. Another thing happens and Vulture finds out it's Peter Parker under the costume. Dun-dun-DUN!

I liked a lot of this movie despite my overall tepid attitude towards the superhero fad. I liked Tom Holland as Spidey and his boyish charm that works well in the role. I enjoyed his aunt, May (Marisa Tomei) for being a spunky middle-aged woman who just wants her nephew to be cool. I liked the classmates Peter knows through his knowledge bowl league - geeky, funny, authentic. The parts that missed the mark for me were several: Peter's relationship with Happy (Jon Favreau), Tony Stark's assistant and overall bore. Also tedious was the final battle scene: a duel between Spidey and Vulture on the side of a holographic plane that is nothing but fast cuts and flashing lights (it was virtually unwatchable). Also despised was the "deus-ex-machina" suit that Stark designs for Spider-Man. Despite it being mostly nylon, it comes equipped with a voice-operated computer program (Jennifer Connelly) and hundreds of gadgets for any given situation. When the plot finds Spider-Man lost in the suburbs of Washington DC, the suit tells him the fastest route to get home. When he's face to face with the girl of his dreams, the suit tells him now is the appropriate time to kiss her. Okay.

The movie is fine. I can't grade it as better or worse than Tobey Maguire's version or the two messes that featured Andrew Garfield (terrible films but Garfield was great). The movie functions as a cog in the great wheel that is Marvel cinematic universe. All their films now have the same dry humor. The same plots. The same washed out color palate that lacks all the vibrancy of an actual comic. These films rely on a wit that is written into each character on a script level. It doesn't matter who directs it or who is in the starring role. Marvel churns out these movies with a machine-like efficiency and with predictable results. Maybe Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool were so loved because they tried to do something different. Spider-Man isn't a bad movie, but when comparing it to the Marvel universe, it's one step above "Dr Strange" and somewhere shy of great.

Beatriz at Dinner (***)

The trailer declared this movie "the first great movie of the Trump presidency." I don't think I can agree with that statement, but I see why that reviewer might make such a claim. BEATRIZ AT DINNER is not a great film, but it is oftentimes very good. It's a talking picture you appreciate for the same reasons a movie like "Before Sunrise" or "My Dinner With Andre" have such wide appeal.

Beatriz (Salma Hayek) is a self-described healer. She works in southern California performing massage therapy, hands-on healing, and all manners of alternative medicine. She lives at home with a couple dogs and a pet goat, fenced into her bedroom after an angry neighbor killed her other goat just last week. While Beatriz offers her services to make others feel better, we find her in a particularly saddened state.

One of her clients is a wealthy family in a gated in community. Kathy and Grant (Connie Britton & David Warshofsky) have known Beatriz for years after she helped nurse their daughter during a bout of cancer. She now comes periodically to offer massages and to chat. After her car breaks down on the way back home, Beatriz is stuck in a predicament: Kathy and Grant are throwing a dinner party for a group of elite friends who are working to close a real estate deal. Beatriz, at first confused as house staff, is offered white wine and casually joins in with the conversation. The contrast in lifestyles is shocking.

The movie might be considered a standard drama, but there is a lot of awkward humor that comes from the humble Beatriz sitting opposite a corrupt CEO (John Lithgow) with brandy and cigar in hand. Salma Hayek is brilliant in the role, stripped down and appearing aged through a life of hard work. She explains how her family emigrated at a young age, how she has worked many odd jobs to scrape by. We believe her. Likewise with Lithgow, the presumed antagonist here. He jokes about hunting wild game and committing white-collar crimes with a twinkle in his eye. While the conversations almost always steer directly into awkward town, the performances are never anything but stellar.

Some might describe this movie as a biting satire; a commentary on our country's sticky relationship with Mexicans and legal immigrants. Lithgow's character is even a real estate mogul with successful sons and a new marriage to his third wife. The comparisons and heavy-handed dialogue build to a point that the movie eventually resorts to a metaphorical hammer, hitting the audience over the head repeatedly in order to drive home the point. All I wanted to shout out was "we get it!" Even the end, a colossal misfire of a dream sequence, seeks to inspire sympathy of a woman like Beatriz. All I felt was an impending eye roll and disappointment that such a wonderful film could go sour so fast.

I would still tell you to see this movie. Watch it for the wonderful performances (even though the characters eventually become black and white caricatures of politicians we see in the news every day). Stay for the sometimes good dialogue and natural scenes in which 6 wealthy white people (and Beatriz) carry on casual conversations and find that there is simply no topics that they can all agree on. After a night of heavy drinking and fighting, Kathy admits to Beatriz that "I don't think I know you," to which Beatriz naturally responds with "you never have." There's a surface level of politeness in our country today, but when you dig just a little deeper under the surface, we realize how absolutely polarized its citizens are. Why did this movie have to betray such a wonderfully innocent observation?

Rough Night (**)

We've seen this plot carried out several times before and with better results. Not the oddly-specific aspects regarding drunk women accidentally murdering their hired stripper and attempting to dump the body, no. The plot revolving around friends reuniting after several years and realizing that they aren't the same people as when they first met. Throughout the film, they laugh, joke, reminisce, and then begin to fight and work towards a breaking point. In the end, they accept each others differences and all is right with the world. That, and there's still a dead body to manage.

Scarlett Johannson's debut as a leading comedienne goes just about as we would expect. So does the story: 4 or 5 college friends meet up in Miami for Jess's (Johannson) Bachelorette Party. Jess is in the midst of running for State Senator (there's an unexplored side plot regarding her horrible screen presence on the campaign ads), her best friend Alice (Jillian Bell) is stuck in the past, Frankie and Blaire (Zoe Kravitz and Ilana Glazer) are also happy to be there. The group is rounded out by Pippa (Kate McKinnon), an Australian buddy Jess met during grad school.

We have the typical assortment of crude jokes you might expect in an R-rated female comedy. We also meet the weird, off-putting characters that are typically present, including nudist neighbors (Demi Moore and Ty Burrell) who are into group sex, Jess's fiance (Paul Downs) who inexplicably drives cross country to intercept the party when his soon-to-be-wife doesn't return his calls. Logic would say that perhaps her phone died, or that she was drunk. Movie logic informs us that he must buy Red Bull, adult diapers, and speed down the highway overnight to save his marriage (this actually happens). Along the way, he stops at a random truck stop and is elicited for oral sex by more than a couple semi drivers. That's comedy, folks.

I will say that overall the group of women work well together. Johannson aside (who's comedy chops are a subpar addition to a well-polished cast), the jokes mostly land and there are several parts that had me laughing if only for the absurdity of it. McKinnon and Bell are particularly funny here. This is not a movie I would recommend to watch anywhere except a small screen at home that can be easily turned off. For every scene that is funny, there is another 2 scenes that are not. Did I mention that bizarre subplot with the fiance strapping on Depends and speeding through poop, sex, and drug jokes? Why wasn't that whole story written out after draft #1? There's a good comedy buried in this movie somewhere. What we have here feels like a very rough cut. Did you catch that joke?

Baby Driver (****)

From the onset, BABY DRIVER seemed like a silly premise. A thriller that stars a quiet driver and explores his employment in the criminal world while romancing a waitress quite literally seems like a carbon copy of Drive, that singularly awesome movie by Nicolas Winding Refn not so many years ago. The title sounded more like the sequel to "Baby's Day Out" more than that of a car-chase action flick. The director, Edgar Wright, known for his British comedies (namely Shawn of the Dead) didn't seem like the main hand to helm such a caper. In the end? I'm surprised to say this movie works.

In regards to the comparisons to Drive, I have to admit that such ideas are quickly dismissed early on in the film. Yes, we have similar characters, but the tone couldn't be more different. We meet Baby (Ansel Elgort), a driver who listens to music in his ipod to drown out a ringing in his ears from a childhood accident. He works for Doc (Kevin Spacey), a crime lord of some sort who employs Baby as the getaway driver for his various heists. His team ranges from the regulars like Buddy (John Hamm) to the quick-tempered and fiery Bats (Jamie Foxx).

As we would expect, Baby falls for a waitress named Debora (Lily James) who finds his quiet demeanor attractive and his taste in music fabulous. As their romance blossoms, so does the risk of imminent danger. With each new mission, the threats rise beyond just being captured by police. The violence slowly mounts, and by the end we have a bloodbath in which no one is safe.

Wright's film (which he conceived of in the mid 1990's apparently) uses an eclectic soundtrack to create a world that contrasts fun music with bloody violence. The first few scenes quite literally feature Baby dancing down the streets, jamming to his music, mouthing the words as though he is stuck in a musical. Many of the characters ask if he's "retarded." We slowly come to understand that Baby is just one strange kid. Having survived a car accident as a child, he has found himself indebted to Doc despite his want for a clean career. Task by task, Baby pays off his debt, adding money to his pockets but dancing a dangerous line between success and death.

I'll be the first to admit that this film's first half didn't work for me. Elgort's performance in particular feels miscast. He plays a boy who's meant to be quiet, studious, intense, and yet he comes across as an actor trying to pander to a script that falls beyond his grasp. Elgort has been fine in other movies, but here is a fundamental skip on the part of the director. Those that do succeed are Kevin Spacey and Jamie Foxx. Foxx in particular plays a wildcard criminal who shoots people without a moment's pause and seems lost to the moral stakes at play. His is a performance that is fun, exciting - an actor at the height of his powers.

Where the beginning felt too forced as a concept, the ending concludes in a bank heist (actually it's at a post office) that builds and builds through action, chases, gunfire, blood, and broken glass... Without a moment to breathe the film whips by and adds to the chaos with each new moment. It's a riveting segment that ends not with the hero driving off into the sunset, but an extended sequence in which the justice system comes crashing down. Sobering as the finale is, I suspect many in the audience might still find moments to cheer.

In the end, the movie whittles down to a pulpy drama chock full of violence and interesting scenarios. Where other stories might become predictable, here I found myself guessing what would happen with each new scene. Not every aspect of this movie works (the romance especially between Debora and Baby was uninspiring to say the least), those parts that succeed hit it out of the park. As a piece of action, this packs a punch. It's stylish, colorful, loud, wonderfully-photographed and expertly paced. Though it's not the best the genre has to offer, boy is it a good time.