Thunderbolts*

Review #2378: Thunderbolts*.

Cast: 

Florence Pugh (Yelena Belova), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Wyatt Russell (John Walker / U.S. Agent), Lewis Pullman (Bob Reynolds / Sentry / Void), Geraldine Viswanathan (Mel), Chris Bauer (Holt), Wendell Pierce (Gary), David Harbour (Alexei Shostakov / Red Guardian), Hannah John-Kamen (Ava Starr / Ghost), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Valentina Allegra de Fontaine), and Olga Kurylenko (Antonia Dreykov / Taskmaster) Directed by Jake Schreier.

Review: 

Sure, why not? I don't read many comics, but screw it, let's do a bit of digging: Thunderbolts originally had their own comic book line in 1997, as originally created by Kurt Busiek with art by Mark Bagley. I suppose most people who know about the group would call them "anti-heroes or super-criminals", so we'll go with that. Eric Pearson, who had written the screenplay for Black Widow (among other things, as pointed out here), pointed out that the character played by Pugh felt like a "natural leader", and he brought that idea to Marvel that eventually brought attention to making a movie, although re-writes were done by Joanna Calo that saw each credited for the screenplay (Lee Sung Jin apparently did "additional literary material"); evidently, the twist at the end is the one big thing that survived from the original script. This is the third film directed by Jake Schreier, previously the director of a handful of television shows and movies such as Paper Towns (2015). Folks who might have been curious about the movie past opening week probably already know why an asterisk [*] is in the film title, but, well, sometimes I do look like an idiot and forget to think about that before taking time to watch a movie in a theater.

Sure, it's a group of misfits coming around together to make a team dealing with a certain type of threat beyond just themselves. Sure, it probably will strike a bit differently for those who are more or less invested in what happens with folks with heightened responsibilities or, well folks who need a super-kick in the pants. Sure, it is a familiar one in mayhem and entertainment value (126 minutes), and maybe it is more of a movie for those who've invested their time with these characters beyond movies (read: streaming shows**). But I did like the ride the film went on, one that wanted to have an ensemble worth watching to see where their chemistry could go from there and succeeded in most of their goals, mostly on the strengths of the middle of the film when you have these folks in the set-up. With that in mind, Pugh does make for a quality lead to focus on first, wracked with vulnerabilities that come in the feeling of being wrapped in doubts and the traps of in one's head about regrets and trying to do anything other than just being the cog in the metaphorical ass-kicking machine, which namely involves weariness. Pullman makes for a capable last piece of the puzzle that arises in gloomy people on the inside that has his own battle in self-doubt that is an interesting presence to see grow in terms of what one is beyond just "Bob", suffice to say. Him and Pugh make an interesting connection when it comes to realizing the importance of seeing people beyond just a shadow, although the threat presented with the Void stuff is pretty fascinating for a time. Russell is entertaining in that cocksure attitude that could only come from attempts at overbearing confidence that fascinates me when realizing that he apparently was meant to be the actual threat in the original vision - sometimes changes are for the better. Admittedly, there isn't as much to say about the character played by John-Kamen beyond realizing, yes, it has been seven years since Ant-Man and the Wasp. Louis-Dreyfus mostly coasts on her own timing to make what is basically a thankless role into one that is semi-interesting in terms of craven power-searching. Stan comes here and there in that shakiness that comes in trying to seem different beyond brooding heroics with "U.S. Congressman mode" (with a hairdo that reminds me of Billy Mitchell) that one knows will probably have something to really do later on, I suppose. Admittedly though, it is Harbour that holds the movie together in support because of the warm amusement that he generates (the Russian accent is up to you, though) in that ambition to be in the spotlight in heroics without just being craven for it all. In general, the movie works best with the ensemble and having actual fun there, since it can be a funny movie at times with the mishmash of quirks more so than its action sequences, which are fine in the routines (debate about lighting all you want, naturally) and the inevitable that comes in trying to reconcile the status now established for a rag-tag group that has their first big team-up basically relying on a group hug (to deal with the threat from within) to make it out. In that sense, it is a fine movie, maybe not nearly as great as it might have aimed for in overall execution but still a fine one in entertainment value for those into that sort of thing.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Call me a nerd, but I lost interest in the idea of watching a Black Widow movie in theaters because why the hell would I watch a movie that will remind me that the character is dead rather than Hawkeye (who I barely can tell you about)? I never even really considered Hawkeye much of a member of the Avengers. Even the Hulk, the one with the weakest movie in Phase One, had a movie to introduce him to "the MCU", but Hawkeye? Really?

**Look man, I just can't do shows that sound like overextended movies on streaming places. Hell, I couldn't even do Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. for longer than like a season, and that was even with the whole "so Agent Carlson is there but not in the movies, because...?" Daredevil might as well be a ghost with how he is treated in movies, and we do not speak of the Hulk on television. The MCU should've taken a year-ish break anyway, since the best movie after Endgame was, what, Guardians of the Galaxy 3?

Oppenheimer.

Review #2050: Oppenheimer.

Cast: 

Cillian Murphy (J. Robert Oppenheimer), Emily Blunt (Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer), Matt Damon (Leslie Groves), Robert Downey Jr (Lewis Strauss), Florence Pugh (Jean Tatlock), Josh Hartnett (Ernest Lawrence), Casey Affleck (Boris Pash), Rami Malek (David Hill), Kenneth Branagh (Niels Bohr), Benny Safdie (Edward Teller), Dylan Arnold (Frank Oppenheimer), Gustaf Skarsgård (Hans Bethe), David Krumholtz (Isidor Isaac Rabi), Matthew Modine (Vannevar Bush), David Dastmalchian (William L. Borden), Tom Conti (Albert Einstein), Michael Angarano (Robert Serber), Jack Quaid (Richard Feynman), Josh Peck (Kenneth Bainbridge), Olivia Thirlby (Lilli Hornig), Dane DeHaan (Kenneth Nichols), Danny Deferrari (Enrico Fermi), Alden Ehrenreich (Senate aide), Jefferson Hall (Haakon Chevalier), and Jason Clarke (Roger Robb) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, and #1618 - Tenet)

Review: 

“I’m always pushing various things forward, but this is one where a lot of different planets aligned. Los Alamos, this place that will always live in history or infamy, was first a place where Oppenheimer and his brother loved to go camping. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, I’m looking at the most personal possible connection between a character and a massive change to the world that couldn’t be undone.” - Christopher Nolan

There is no way to state how damn good the film is besides saying it is a really great achievement that should be seen. Blah blah Barbie, you could see that any time in the next couple of weeks but consider Oppenheimer as early as one could possibly do. No really, see it as quickly as you can, the three-hour runtime is worth the time presented, and I am sure you will be rewarded by the experience that makes for a fascinating biopic. The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer has been argued to be one of a modern tragedy, and this film proves that very point by the time it even has built two-thirds of the scope required of three hours of breathtaking film. Lord do I wish it was easy to just say what I mean in less than a handful of paragraphs, but if one can say roughly over 900 words for a film involving humans and dolls, clearly one has to make sure to put in the hours to articulate the importance of watching a film (specifically Nolan, who wrote the screenplay) that took its inspiration from the 2005 biography of the famed Oppenheimer in American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (incidentally, some of the subjects interviewed by Sherwin had been featured in The Day After Trinity, such as Haakon Chevalier). Oppenheimer is seen in various places besides Los Alamos in New Mexico, of course, such as his time as professor at thee University of California, Berkeley and his time spent after the war at the Institute for Advanced Study, while one other moment in history is seen under the cloud of Oppenheimer with the 1959 confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss for the Secretary of Commerce, after having taken office via a recess appointment the previous year (the film obviously doesn't have time to mention everyone, but the scuttling of the confirmation had help from Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, whose disagreements with Strauss drove him to drive such an effort, complete with an ally in fellow Senator and committee member dealing with commerce in Gale W. McGee). You can thank the efforts of folks such as J. David Wargo and James Woods (both executive producers) for getting this film to the finish line, since plans for doing one based on the book had muddled for over a decade; the only film to feature Oppenheimer in a prominent role was Fat Man and Little Boy (as played by Dwight Shultz for a film released in 1989), which absolutely nobody remembers fondly, at least when compared to say, the 1980 BBC TV serial Oppenheimer, which had Sam Waterston as star. Nolan has stated the purpose of having scenes in black-and-white is meant to present an objective view of the story of Oppenheimer from the point of view of the one most seen in these scenes with Strauss.

Oppenheimer the man is presented in all of his epic qualities of contradiction of brilliance. He is the namesake for both a process and approximation in science (with collaboration with other scientists, naturally) that is also wracked in paradoxes that make the heart of the film. Pride really does come before the fall, especially for someone who was under constant surveillance by the FBI before and after the war. The man is presented as a man with qualities and flaws apparent to all of us, a man of brilliance, a man of guilt, a man of womanizers, a man fit to argue as one of great tragedy. There are so many performances in this film that one can't mention every single person that portray these figures (some of whom only appear for a time such as Gary Oldman as President Harry Truman or James Remar as Henry Stimson). It is easy to state however, that Murphy and Downey Jr rein in the best performances of the whole film, with each of their stories being told in such compelling detail. Murphy has the weight of the title role on his shoulders, but he handles it with such clear conviction that one sees him as Oppenheimer with perfect efficiency that makes it so one never sees an actor playing a man but just the man and all of his qualities thrust upon us, and it takes a most exceptional person to give the role justice with such persuasive power. We live in a world created by Oppenheimer's actions and we feel it firmly with his performance. Downey Jr is practically the mirror of Oppenheimer when it comes to how he handles being cast into the light of his own hearing. All great villains believe themselves to be in the right, ones who believe that power stays in the shadows because only amateurs chase the sun, and Downey Jr plays this with such devastating power that is conniving and breathtaking in the time he is on screen. His arrogance is breathtaking in the greatest of ways possible, one filled with pique that is accompanied in moments with Ehrenreich for fascinating interaction. Murphy and Downey Jr clearly deserve all the recognition they have gotten for this film already and I am sure they will endure in the years to come. Of course, the rest of the performers are magnificent as well in conveying the players to destruction necessary, mostly in the case of Damon and Blunt. The clash of hard-driving practicality in Damon clashes with the philosophical Murphy for such riveting tension and even more riveting in the respect you see between the two that comes out because of how effective it all is played out. Blunt and her own contradictions make for a worthy pairing with Murphy, one with razor-sharp timing and unwavering confidence that goes well when you consider how Murphy is presented with Pugh on the other side of feminine curiosity (which in of itself is useful to watch). You get the point about these performers, they are useful in all the ways that matter without distraction, which is bookended by Conti but also sees people such as Hartnett and Safdie shine too.

Nothing is more exhilarating than seeing Lewis Strauss not become a member of a cabinet. Nah, just kidding (fun fact: he was the first person not confirmed for a cabinet seat by the US Senate since 1925 - never let it be said that Movie Night does not try to deliver "education" beyond rambling), because the buildup to the Trinity test is one for the ages. The buildup to the bomb and the accompanying music by Ludwig Göransson is absolutely worth the price of admission, complete with the moment itself in its beautiful destructive quality (the film was done with minimal computer-generated imagery). Of course, other sequences such as expressing certain scientific aspects (remember that the real Oppenheimer made contributions to various theories such as black holes) is a reminder that seeing this film on the biggest screen possible really can be a rewarding time for all involved. The guilt is crushing in all of the ways that matter when it comes to the level of involvement one has in forming a bomb and seeing it go away from your hands or seeing the results of it. Of course, since the film includes the noted scene of President Truman mocking Oppenheimer of just who has "blood on their hands", the fascination will endure further in discussion of ethics and beyond. Far from just a biopic that goes from point A to point B, the film flourishes from the very get-go and never lets up in conveying the wonder that comes in seeing the Manhattan Project meet its destiny that intertwine with the destinies of both Oppenheimer and Strauss with their hearings. God do I love this film, and I can't say enough about just how brilliant it is or how devilishly well-timed it is to make the three hours pass by without a single complaint. It serves as both an informative feature of the time and also a warning to the danger that comes with living in a world that Nolan believes is one shaped by Oppenheimer, whether we like it or not.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.

Review #1947: Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.

Cast: 

Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Harvey Guillén (Perrito), Florence Pugh (Goldilocks), Olivia Colman (Mama Bear), Ray Winstone (Papa Bear), Samson Kayo (Baby Bear), John Mulaney ("Big" Jack Horner), Wagner Moura (Wolf / Death), Da'Vine Joy Randolph (Mama Luna), Anthony Mendez (Doctor), and Kevin McCann (the Talking Cricket) Directed by Joel Crawford and Januel Mercado.

Review: 

You may or may not remember that Puss in Boots (2011) was eleven years ago. That was the culmination of years of development because of how much interest there was by DreamWorks Animation to do a feature film based on the character inspired by the fairy tale character of the same name (the origin of the fairy tale character is rooted in Italy, but the film character is depicted as having Spanish origin - incidentally, Banderas is the voice for the Spanish and Italian dubs of the character). Puss first was introduced in Shrek 2 (2004). The influences for the character are pretty evident, ranging from Errol Flynn to Zorro to bits taken straight from the voice actor in Banderas. Appreciation for the character were enough to scuttle the original idea to make a direct-to-video movie and instead make a theatrical effort instead, one that continued the trend of amusing takes on fairy tale characters (such as Jack and Jill, for example). It was a pretty good movie, but I think you can forgive me for having a bit of a hazy memory and doubt that this would be anything too special. The success of the film led to plans for a second film pretty quickly, but development took a considerable amount of time (such as restructuring of the script by 2015); an entire animated television series ran from 2015 to 2018 in that eleven-year gap between films, just to make the point clear. It was production designer Nate Wragg that pushed the idea for the animation to resemble a fairy tale illustration. So yes, 3D animation combines with painterly textures that might make one think of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018). The screenplay was done by Paul Fisher and Tommy Swerdlow, while Swerdlow co-wrote the story with Tom Wheeler (the screenwriter / story co-writer on the previous film). This is the third feature film for Joel Crawford, who debuted as a director with The Croods: A New Age (2020) after working with DreamWorks Animation in the story artist department since 2006 on numerous films, while this is the first feature effort for Januel Mercado (he serves as "co-director", which in my mind deserves recognition).

It dawned on me pretty early on that I have only seen three DreamWorks Animation films in a theater when they were new: Madagascar (2005), Shrek the Third (2007), and Shrek Forever After (2010). The funny thing is that this movie actually became better than any of those films by about the halfway point. It aims for something not seen much in the prior film or the Shrek films in the eye for a darker tone that isn't leaden with edgy humor but instead a celebration of adventure. How many animated films even think about the subject of one's mortality? It manages to improve on the original by cultivating an adventure and dynamic between its main group that doesn't hinge on being just like the first feature, which basically means aiming itself as a take on the Spaghetti Western. The opening sequence alone is worth watching for the dazzlement it inspires in re-introducing the character in all of his "rockstar glory" (if you will) before launching its key setup: facing Death. The fact that one gets to see just how one can lose eight lives in the blink of an eye is pitch-black amusing. It is interesting to see how Banderas has kept this role fresh and interesting beyond just playing a silly cat that happens to look a bit like Zorro. The mischievous charm present in his last four vocal performances as the character is still here, which is now tinged with fear that he handles with compelling edge required to make the stakes all the more important. We like the actor and character already, so it isn't too much of a leap here, but Banderas isn't merely on autopilot in terms of just playing schtick. Hayek is just as charming in allure (the only returning actor besides Banderas), still showing worthy chemistry with Banderas. In a way, it makes sense that Guillen is part of this key trio, since the last film did have a trio with Banderas and Hayek, albeit in a different manner when it came to a quest. Guillen is the comic relief that in a sense is also the spirit of the whole film: carefree and wandering on its own path, and I think that results in a pretty decent performance, one with decent chuckles that don't derail the proceedings (well, maybe the bit about trying to do cute eyes, but other than that...). Moura makes for a compelling figure to loom over the proceedings, since, well, he is playing Death (literally). Granted, it isn't as prolific in time on screen as Mulaney, but Moura still makes for a solid foil with the proper delivery one would hope to see. As for Mulaney, he makes a chuckler as the other key adversary looming over the proceedings that reminds me of another Western pastiche: Harvey Korman from Blazing Saddles. This is basically a compliment in terms of timing worth every moment seen on screen. The quartet of reimagined storybook characters in Pugh-Colman-Winstone-Kayo is a nice one in terms of silly wannabee heavies, ones with desires and quirks that are actually compelling and make for an interesting dynamic.

Whether there is another adventure involving this character or not (green-skinned ogre or not...), I would say that it proved to be a useful use of my time when it comes to seeing animation done right. It has an inevitable moral about the nature of figuring out what one really wants, but it handles that with general patience and weaving that doesn't make for any easy outs. The movie feels like a breeze at 102 minutes, managing to show plenty of interesting visuals (such as the climax in a star) that make for a generally involving time. When it comes to making arguments about animated movies not merely just for children, this is a pretty good indicator of an animated film that can work for anyone. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Midsommar.

Review #1244: Midsommar.

Cast: 
Florence Pugh (Dani Ardor), Jack Reynor (Christian Hughes), William Jackson Harper (Josh), Vilhelm Blomgren (Pelle), Will Poulter (Mark), Ellora Torchia (Connie), Archie Madekwe (Simon), Anna Åström (Karin), Mats Blomgren (Odd), Tomas Engström (Jarl), Gunnel Fred (Siv), Isabelle Grill (Maja), and Hampus Hallberg (Ingemar) Written and Directed by Ari Aster (#1099 - Hereditary)

Review: 
I went into this film with a few reservations, not so much because it seemed like an unsettling horror film, but moreso because I really did not want to build much anticipation for an offbeat experience that was going to last 147 minutes and come from a director that made an uneven debut movie that a bunch of people really embraced. At least I can say that this one is easier to recommend, if only because it actually feels like a whole experience of creepy horror. It has a great deal of craftsmanship in being unsettling, and I do very much applaud an attempt at folktale horror, even if it meanders a bit too long in actually driving the scares forward. Aster had initially rejected the pitch of studio executives to make a Sweden-set slasher film because he didn't think he a way into a story, although he ultimately based it around the disintegrating relationship of the two main characters as the main central conflict due to him experiencing a difficult breakup. Then again, he apparently had an original cut of the film that lasted over three hours, so perhaps this is a film that really does just want to take its time in getting me to care about said couple and their problems, which is more of a hit-and-miss type. I'm more focused on wondering if the main group of characters are ever going to figure out what is really going on with this commune dressed in white that has creepy drawings and sacred yellow triangle temples. The answer to that does tend to get lost in the shuffle with a bunch of creepy images and moments, which surely shine better than the drama between Pugh and Reynor, although they certainly prove their worth with their performances when needed. The others do their parts just fine, such as the folks in the commune being as assuring and observable up to a point.

Perhaps others really do care enough about how this relationship withers and withers through two hours, but time is better spent looking at how bright everything looks alongside camera warps and some interesting splatter shots. What film other than this has a sequence where it is shot upside down before gradually coming back to right-side up? It certainly is one of those "is this really happening?" type of movie, ranging from the obvious to the absurd, which will play differently for whatever mindset you're in, whether involving a certain ancient ritual or a certain sequence involving passion and plenty of weird imagery. The laughs do come out a bunch of times, whether intentional (such as with Poulter) or not, so at least the film isn't taking itself completely seriously all the time. Honestly, I was fine with what I got to see on screen, but it really is a case of inevitability - how much can you really show before it becomes too much to bear? Horror is what I sit for, with drama taking a backseat - sometimes you really need to get to the point without making patience become a tired virtue, where weirdness runs rampant. At least I can say this isn't a horror tale that gives you whiplash when it comes to actually delivering the parts - which it does enough to outweigh its burden of overwhelming itself with breakup/revenge fantasy as opposed to just toeing the slasher film standards. At least I can say this wasn't some limited release that only went to art-house theaters (the most obvious place this film belongs to) and nowhere else. Let all the movie-going folk encounter a curious offbeat film to stick out from the other types of fare, I say. Maybe you'll love it, maybe you'll hate it, but I sure am curious to see exactly where Aster can go from here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.