Tár.

Review #1965: Tár.

Cast: 

Cate Blanchett (Linda Tarr/Lydia Tár), Nina Hoss (Sharon Goodnow), Noémie Merlant (Francesca Lentini), Sophie Kauer (Olga Metkina), Julian Glover (Andris Davis), Allan Corduner (Sebastian Brix), Mark Strong (Eliot Kaplan), Sylvia Flote (Krista Taylor), Adam Gopnik (himself), Mila Bogojevic (Petra), Zethphan Smith-Gneist (Max) Written and Directed by Todd Field.

Review: 

"Well, I'd been thinking about this character for a very long time and sort of been asking myself, you know, some questions of how we look at power, you know? Like, who has it? Who feeds it? Who benefits? You know, and from the beginning of time, that hasn't really been a question."

Admittedly, defining a director by the number of films directed is pretty dubious. But it does lead to interesting discussions, as is the case with Todd Field. Born in Pomona, California but raised in Portland, Oregon, he honed his interests in music and acting, with his debut in the latter being in 1986. His interest in directing came in 1992, which began a slew of short films with the American Film Institute. In 2001, he made his feature film debut as the director and co-writer of In the Bedroom, an independent film success. He returned in 2006 with Little Children, which was a critical hit. However, his third feature film did not come for sixteen years, which occurred due to a variety of projects dying in development (of course, he also had the pleasure of parenthood as well, so he obviously had a point in setting a sight of doing particular material he wanted). Field wrote the script specifically in the hopes of getting Blanchett (and only her) to star in the film. Field might be one of very few people to benefit from a car crash, oddly enough. He had been told by Blanchett's agent that she would be too busy to work on any more projects for three years before he got into a car crash. Apparently, the agent felt sorry enough about hearing of the wreck that she stated that Field could be allowed to send Blanchett the script for her to read, which she liked. All diegetic music (source music) was recorded live on-set, whether that involves the piano, the cello, or the Dresden Philharmonic (used for the fictional orchestra seen in the film).

It is funny and sad at the same time to talk about a movie that came and went with mild fanfare that saw more people talk about the title character and so-called "cancel culture" rather than people seeing it. For the most part, I didn't even find the title character that particularly unlikable, instead finding a twisted pity for seeing how far a bully can go in a downfall when all they wanted to do was to be judged on their own merits that made them both a genius and, well, Tár. Hell, I actually read an article that (jokingly or not) thought that believed Tár was a real person (the name dropping of certain composers that were accused of sexual misconduct, is accurate, however). Field has stated that the film is in many ways a fractured fairy tale (since there has never actually been a female principal conductor of a major German orchestra). I would also say it is also an inversion of both the biopic and ghost story. This is the kind of movie where the lead character finds a mentor in Leonard Bernstein that is basically "I watched tapes of the famed composer and found something worth looking to".  I loathe the idea of calling a movie any certain kind of statement on something, but I will say that it most certainly is not a look into "cancel culture". Actual conductor Marin Alsop (the first woman appointed to lead a major American orchestra) slammed the movie as some sort of film that offended her as a "woman...as a conductor...as a lesbian". Besides, having a few similar characteristics to Alsop isn't particularly a bad thing when one is a movie involving an accused pervert and the other is real life (besides, isn't true equality about having ambiguous characters of all genders rather than sugarcoating?). But this is a movie about the all-corrupting nature of power, one that sees the highs and lows that come with trying to assert their status, which I think is universal beyond the genders (in other words, movies are not always going to be about likable winners making contributions to society, so pick better next time), which corrodes our ideals and fantasies until we don't even recognize ourselves. Besides, a movie can pack plenty of curiosity and interest in a subject with an (perceived) unlikable character if the execution is done right, and I believe that is the case here. Granted, it is a long and winding road to get there, but it ultimately proves worth it to those with the fortitude to see something with as much edge in descent as there is visual style present here.

In a movie with the titling style of a biopic, there is something amusing about that particular character finding it odd to see pupils interested more in the personal history and identity of a musician than their actual work. Blanchett listened to recordings of "razor-sharp, absolutely authentic public intellectual" Susan Sontag. She has stated that the character is basically one who tries to hide from both the unpleasant side of oneself and the inevitable specter of death, which she accomplishes well in ambiguity when you see the contrast between the public and private persona that are driven by sound.  As such, it probably isn't surprising that she dominates the film with a tremendous performance, one composed of such vaunted confidence as a dominator of timing and poise...which makes the eventual descent all the more entertaining. That doesn't mean the other actors are forgettable, since they each do pretty well as mere tools of transactional contrast with Blanchett, whether that involves ones engaging in complicity such as Merlant or the perfect enabler with Hoss or the perfect conniving company man in Strong. Probably the best scene to look upon her as a character is a scene where she is trying to teach a masterclass about composers and finds herself with someone not interested in Johann Sebastian Bach. It works so well in bitter amusement because of how it presents each presence in where each can be thought to be right and wrong in what ends up being a ten-minute masterclass in a long take vivisection (as executed by Field and cinematographer Florian Hoffmeister). It certainly is a movie that captures great scope for its 158-minute runtime, with Hoffmeister defining the film's visual style as "appearance, being, detachment, and intimacy", and I would say that makes this a highly interesting film to let sift in your mind, one where the second half is undoubtedly best to sift through in dissecting a downfall first-hand. Of course, the nature of its ending and the ways it gets there is entirely up to the viewer to see if it pays off in splendid ways or not (it does for me, with those last moments of seeing where the new skin of a genius at persona-inventing has led them). It is a movie all about details to look forward and backward through, one that asks probing questions about just what a genius means when it comes to the power they wield in public and private and where it can all lead to. Whether one believes it is one of the best films of the year or not, Tár is definitely an accomplishment for both its main star and director in striking power that makes it a curious film to recommend for those who look for contemporary enjoyment or to see what could happen the more times they find themselves coming back to it. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

1917.

Review #1585: 1917.

Cast: 

George MacKay (Lance Corporal William "Will" Schofield), Dean-Charles Chapman (Lance Corporal Thomas "Tom" Blake), Mark Strong (Captain Smith), Andrew Scott (Lieutenant Leslie), Richard Madden (Lieutenant Joseph Blake), Claire Duburcq (Lauri), Colin Firth (General Erinmore), Benedict Cumberbatch (Colonel Mackenzie), Daniel Mays (Sergeant Sanders), and Adrian Scarborough (Major Hepburn) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall)

Review: 

“I wanted something that had the quality of a dream at times, but had real-life stakes. Any narrative, any fiction is a compression in time, a compression of character. You’re trying to find the tip of an iceberg. And if the tip is well done, the iceberg becomes clear. You don’t have to see it if you know it’s there.”

Most films in some form have something to do with family. Sam Mendes was inspired to do the film from stories that were told to him by his grandfather Alfred Mendes about his service in World War I. The elder Mendes was born in Trinidad in 1897, with chances of study in university being curtailed by the start of the Great War (also known as World War I). He served in the war under the 1st Battalion King's Royal Rifle Brigade and carried messages between no-man's land through the muddy trenches of war. After his war service, he wrote short stories and novels while working in provisions and civil service. His grandson Sam was the son of an author and a professor, who first developed an interest in cinema from a young age. His studies at Peterhouse, Cambridge helped him find interest in theatre as well, where he directed a number of plays at the Marlowe Society before his graduation in 1987. He soon became a director for plays in the theatre that rose in prominence over the next decade and a half before being brought in to direct his first ever film with American Beauty (1999), a tremendous success (he aspired to make films like the ones he had seen at Cambridge, such as Paris, Texas (1984), Repo Man (1984), and River's Edge (1986)). Other films (mostly successes) followed in its wake, with this being his eighth feature film (and first script written, done with Krysty Wilson-Cairns). He described his idea to do a film based on a messenger on a short time period to where he needs to go in the trenches of war that he described was "fundamentally about paralysis and stasis", one that would appear as two continuous shots (with the use of long takes). The primary stars and supporting characters are fictional, but the film's inspiration is Operation Alberich, in which Germany made their withdrawal to change their positions on the Hindenburg Line that happened in the span of a month in 1917 (as opposed to the date of April 6, 1917 that the film begins its story). 

There have been quite a number of war films over the years, with a portion of them revolving around World War I in some manner, whether that involves the silent era with The Big Parade (1925), or with sound in novel adaptations like All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957) or further down the line of perspective with Gallipoli (1981). To me, the sense of urgency that comes with the film seems a bit reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan (1999, a messenger film of sorts) or perhaps a more modern example would be with Dunkirk (2017, which dealt with an escape through three storylines and minimal dialogue), and the enjoyment of the film comes from how much of its filmmaking reaches you in interest for its urgent pacing for 119 minutes. The camera almost seems like a person following these two main characters at times, as cinematographer Roger Deakins weaves together a dynamic look and execution to following along with the span of one moment in time. For better or worse, the film is more a technical achievement than an achieved war film - it is fairly entertaining, in the same way that it will generally keep you on your toes for what could come around the screen next, but it can be easy to see a small divide between viewers that find marvel with its shot structure and others who find it more distracting to the real sense of the war as a whole. Having just two main characters mixed in with a group of glorified cameos also in some ways seems to tinker with its magnitude of war. MacKay does well with a role on the routine, having to move fast with bits and pieces of useful dialogue mixed in with the sounds of war that are fine without being wooden - in other words, we can follow him fine in those long takes without constantly checking our watch. Chapman does alright as well with his time to spend on screen, as each make for a useful duo that can have small exchanges beyond just the mission, such as when they have to get through a trapped place with one blind leap. The others come and go in parts, notably with Firth as the one detailing the mission, Strong as one of the leaders in transport, and Cumberbatch as the person to focus on to end the goal, and they all do fine here (it isn't exactly a role to mug the scenery if the camera is on the move anyway). As a whole, it is generally engaging with its intent of urgent moviemaking that will likely prove fascinating for those looking to find films of its era that capture curiosity in technical terms with a good hand guiding the way to looking back to the past as a way to keep it around in the present.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And so this ends the Tribute to the Decades project (January-October). This was the largest project that Movie Night has ever had, and it is that drive to do ten months of reviews to cover a wide range of films that led to this being the greatest year ever for writing (the previous record was 242 in 2012), and it isn't quite over yet. Plans for what happens next will be on a smaller scale (namely, not more themed months for a while), but I hope you all enjoyed this project for what it covered and what it could have covered - Thanks, folks.

Shazam!

Review #1207: Shazam!

Cast: 
Asher Angel (Billy Batson), Zachary Levi (Shazam), Mark Strong (Dr. Thaddeus Sivana), Jack Dylan Grazer (Freddy Freeman), Djimon Hounsou (Wizard), Faithe Herman (Darla Dudley), Grace Fulton (Mary Bromfield), Ian Chen (Eugene Choi), Jovan Armand (Pedro Peña), Marta Milans (Rosa Vasquez), Cooper Andrews (Victor Vasquez), and John Glover (Mr. Sivana), with Adam Brody (Super Hero Freddy), Meagan Good (Super Hero Darla), Michelle Borth (Super Hero Mary), Ross Butler (Super Hero Eugene), and D. J. Cotrona (Super Hero Pedro) Directed by David F. Sandberg.

Review: 
Time for a bit of story time, since I felt it seemed interesting enough in regards to Shazam and his history.

Shazam! certainly had a unique path to entering the worlds of comic books and film. The success of heroes such as Superman and Batman in their respective line of comics inspired Fawcett Comics to try and make their own respective hero, with Captain Marvel being created in 1939. Creators Bill Parker and C. C. Beck wanted to deliver a hero that would rely on folk-tales and myths more than pulp - Shazam after all is an acronym for the six figures who gave power to the hero originally known as Captain Marvel: Solomon, Hercules, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles, and Mercury. In 1941, Republic Pictures released the film serial Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941), becoming the first film depiction of a superhero. While future films did not follow in the next seven decades, a television series was done in 1974 involving Filmation. It should be noted that DC Comics did not find the hero to be particularly original, filing lawsuits against both Fawcett Comics and Republic Pictures for copyright infringement in 1941 due to what they saw as similarities between Superman and Captain Marvel. There were verdicts and appeals that followed over the next decade, but Fawcett eventually gave up publishing the hero in 1953, fourteen years after the character's birth. In 1972, DC brought back the property; by this point, Marvel had acquired the trademark and started their own series of Captain Marvel comic books. The origin that the film utilizes for Batson is from more recent publications (as opposed to the newsboy sleeping in a subway station of the original) while also having inspiration from Big (1988). In any case, it is obvious fairly quickly that this is aiming for light charm in a year surrounded by heroes and occasional origin stories.

The obvious thing to say is that this is a wonderful hero film. It doesn't fall into the trap of needing high stakes or overwrought drama but instead relies on charm and humor along with a mostly effective story headlined by Angel, Levi, and Strong. Angel is worthy enough for us to want to follow along with on his path of discovery, never seeming too distant or out-of-touch for us to care about - in essence, he's a kid we can watch grow just as the movie does. Levi has the task of acting as a kid in an adult's body (complete with a whole suit and such), and he rolls with it with ease, having as much fun as one probably would have when trying to find who they are beneath a flashy suit and self promotion. Strong is just as adept in serving as the arch nemesis in part because he seems quite creepy enough to pull his scheme to completion.  He plays the bitter yet brilliant foe with relish that makes one yearn for more from him. Grazer works just fine, serving as the one to play a bit of second fiddle "manager" to Angel that helps deliver some chuckles, such as when he and Levi both realize his immunity to bullets and proceed to want to get the would-be robbers to do it again on camera, but now targeted on the face. Hounsou does just fine with his purpose of crackling the plot along with some magic with a voice fit for a wise tiring wizard. The other members of the cast aren't given too much to really do until the climax, but nobody sticks out as a deterrent to the enjoyment, occasionally serving for a chuckle. The film spends the chunk of its first half to try and give story to both its lead character and villain. Both have a key choice they had to make as children and where they go from there. It carefully balances its act to try and not tire patience prior to the arrival of its main card of its title hero. It achieves the goals it sets out to do by not stretching itself too thin with too many subplots or characters and keeps things on a routine if not comfortable level. The scenes involving Shazam finding his powers can certainly give a jolt of astonishment. I also found the Sins to be pretty interesting to look at, and they do seem creepy enough without making the movie seem completely confused on where it is going. Watching enough of these type of films makes some of the film's turns for its resolutions come off as more familiar and expected than probably imagined, but at least there isn't anything here that tries to do a take off of ill-advised narrative decisions. The climax serves the film decently in getting some thrills and chuckles without becoming too weighted down in trying to linger for too long, although a 132 minute run-time perhaps could have been trimmed a bit. In any case, the best that can be said for this film is that it is a wildly entertaining superhero film, just as well to watch alongside other features such as Wonder Woman (2017) or Aquaman (2018) that sticks out for its abundance of light charm and energy. I certainly look forward to any future installments involving this character, that is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Review #994: Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Cast: 
Colin Firth (Harry Hart / Galahad), Julianne Moore (Poppy Adams), Taron Egerton (Gary "Eggs)" Unwin / Galahad), Mark Strong (Merlin), Halle Berry (Ginger), Elton John (Himself), Channing Tatum (Tequila), Jeff Bridges (Champagne), Pedro Pascal (Whiskey), Edward Holcroft (Charles "Charlie" Hesketh), Hanna Alström (Crown Princess Tilde of Sweden), Poppy Delevingne (Clara Von Gluckfberg), and Bruce Greenwood (The President) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class and #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service)

Review: 
Sequels always seem like they have to try and live up to the original film, whether by having high stakes or anteing up the action/effects. In the case of this film, there is definitely an attempt at making a bigger piece of extravagant action and violence (complete with an extended Elton John cameo), for better or for worse. It is hard to not compare this film to the first one, and in that comparison this is the weaker installment, not seeming to have much in terms of cleverness, though it does retain most of the charm and style. It doesn't play for any kind of safe territory that other spy films might pull, and it certainly is daring to see the risks that the movie takes, even if it sometimes feels a bit much. Some might term the film's tactics as "overkill", but it definitely has an appeal for someone looking for a movie that will go off the rails and yet still have enough pull from its action sequences and humor to work. If there is any kind of film that this one might remind me of, it would likely be Men in Black II (#212), or even Die Another Day (#174) - take that for what you will.

Firth and Egerton are still a fine duo, even if they don't have that same kind of chemistry as before. Moore proves to be fairly entertaining, and her plan is definitely an interesting one, but I felt that her plot thread nearly went off the rails by the time the climax ended. The Statesman crew are fairly interesting, although they do not have too much screen-time (with Tatum's role feeling like a cameo) as compared to the main Kingsman, with Pascal being the key standout, mostly because he certainly comes off as the most interesting. The rest of the cast is fairly decent, with Strong being a fine highlight. Whether one is a big Elton John fan or not (I have two songs of his in my one of my playlists), he certainly has an interesting presence over the time(s) that he appears in the movie - which can either be charming or tiresome - I found him to be fairly entertaining on the whole. The run-time may be an easy issue for some (141 minutes, as opposed to the original's 129 minute run-time), in part because it may just seem too long for a movie that seems to want to pack in every sort of action and effect it can, which can come off as a bit tedious. The film strives to entertain, and it does on some level succeed in its goal, but whether it comes at the price of competency is up to the viewer to decide. I fall around the middle, it that I know the movie is somewhat inferior to the first film, but I also know that I had a fine time watching it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Kingsman: The Secret Service.

Review #993: Kingsman: The Secret Service.

Cast: 
Colin Firth (Harry Hart / Galahad), Samuel L. Jackson (Richmond Valentine), Mark Strong (Merlin), Taron Egerton (Gary "Eggsy" Unwin), Michael Caine (Chester King / Arthur), Sophie Cookson (Roxanne "Roxy" Morton / Lancelot), Sofia Boutella (Gazelle), Samantha Womack (Michelle Unwin), Geoff Bell (Dean), Edward Holcroft (Charles "Charlie" Hesketh), Mark Hamill (Professor James Arnold), Jack Davenport (James Spencer / Lancelot), Jack Cutmore-Scott (Rufus Saville), Lily Travers (Lady Sophie), Hanna Alström (Princess Tilde), and Bjørn Floberg (Scandinavian Prime Minister) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class)

Review: 
It is evident early on to see the influence the James Bond films had in making this movie (based on the comic book series The Secret Service): specifically, the Roger Moore films. Granted, this is certainly more stylized in its action (and decidedly more violent) than those films, but this is a movie that is fairly enjoyable entertainment that will fill some people's taste significantly better than others. The best parts of the film involve either Firth and Egerton together on screen, or Jackson. The mentor-trainee aspects aren't particularly new (you could take your pick on what it reminds you, my pick would be Men in Black - #211), but they certainly are enjoyable to watch along with being capable heroes in their own right. Jackson does a capable job in part because he seems so comfortable with the role he is playing on screen, with a good sense of humor and self-awareness (which the film has a good deal of already) that is fairly entertaining; his supervillain plot is certainly an interesting one, resembling something one of the Moore Bond films would've done, reminding me a bit of Moonraker (minus the space parts, naturally) that certainly might seem a bit odd with its implications if deep thought was put into it, though what spy flick doesn't have that kind of quirk? The rest of the cast is fairly enjoyable and capable at their roles, such as Strong and Cookson, with Boutella proving to be a fairly useful (and thrilling) henchwoman.

The movie certainly has a useful sense of humor to it that hits more than it misses when required, fitting with the tone of the film for the most part. The action sequences are interesting to watch to be executed on screen, never really seeming to miss a beat nor feel too murky (with the easiest standout being at the church); the violence might prove to be a bit graphic for some, but I generally thought that it worked finely enough to the movie's advantage, for better or for worse. Ultimately, the enjoyment one gets from this movie comes from how they feel about the action and the way the movie goes about with getting to the highs (and slight lows) that it does. Take it for what it is worth, and you get a movie that has something to like (or watch) for most people, for better or for worse.

I don't usually get to say exactly what is next up on Movie Night, but here's a rare exception.
Next Review: Kingsman: The Golden Circle. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Green Lantern.

Review #220: Green Lantern. Cast Ryan Reynolds (Hal Jordan / Green Lantern), Blake Lively (Carol Ferris), Peter Sarsgaard (Hector Hammond), Mark Strong (Sinestro), Angela Bassett (Dr. Amanda Waller), Tim Robbins (Senator Robert Hammond), Temuera Morrison (Abin Sur / Green Lantern), Geoffrey Rush (Tomar-Re / Green Lantern), Michael Clarke Duncan (Kilowog / Green Lantern), Taika Waititi (Thomas Kalmaku), and Clancy Brown (Parallax) Directed by Martin Campbell (#173 - Goldeneye, #285 - Casino Royale) Review My first question is: "This was made for how much?" The answer is $200 Million, which is odd, given that this film doesn't look like it. This is Warner Brothers' attempt to venture into a different superhero not named Batman or Superman. And it...doesn't work out well. The biggest problem is that it has tries for more style then substance. Reynolds is allright, given what he has to work with, but the other characters aren't really memorable. I kept calling the others "girl interest", and "Guy with effects make him look like the kid from Mask". The effects aren't even that memorable. My question is "How come the costume looks CGI and not just something they could've made?" Is it me or does Jordan's mask look like a [green] Fruit Roll-Up stretched out? Maybe it's just me. All in all, the film just isn't as memorable, and is a failure by Warner and DC to have a new hero franchise to rival Marvel (Which already has a giant head start that won't end anytime soon) But Reynolds is succeeding either way (Given that he'll be playing Deadpool a few years from now) And lastly, this film blows the opportunity for Lantern to rise to something more. Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.