The Trial of the Chicago 7 - Review

 

Handing Aaron Sorkin (“The West Wing,” “The Social Network”) the task of writing a film set almost entirely within a courtroom is one of the easiest bets in all of Hollywood. His unique writing style and penchant for satisfying, almost rhythmic dialogue can make even the most dire situations fun to watch, as it allows any scenario to boil down to the basic concept of watching great actors deliver great dialogue.

After his directorial debut with 2017’s “Molly’s Game”, Sorkin is yet again directing his own script for the long in development “Trial of the Chicago 7”, which is, surprise, a film about the trial of the Chicago 7. For those unaware, the night of the democratic national convention in 1968 a riot broke out involving the Chicago police and a group of anti-Vietnam war protestors. The trial involved 8 high profile protestors and leaders charged with inciting the riots.

Sorkin takes a handful of lesser known actors, Alex Sharp (“How to Talk to Girls at Parties,” “The Hustle”), Noah Robbins (“The Assistant”), Daniel Flaherty (“November Criminals,” “The Meyerowitz Stories”), and throws them in with some true dramatic heavyweights like John Carroll Lynch (“The Founder,” “Zodiac”), Jeremy Strong (“The Big Short,” “Selma”), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (“Aquaman,” “Watchmen (2019)”), and Frank Langella (“Frost/Nixon,” “Good Night, and Good Luck”) and ends up creating a powder keg of an ensemble that feels as close to a filmed play as one can get without actually becoming a filmed play. To say each and every actor is excellent seems like oversimplifying things, but it says a lot about their talent and Sorkin’s direction that even amongst the across the board excellent cast, there are standouts.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“Inception,” “50/50”) as federal prosecutor Richard Schultz is certainly the most morally grey character in the film, serving somewhat as an audience surrogate and leveraging Levitt’s everyman charms with his extreme talent. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies,” “Ready Player One”) is making an easy case for his second academy award as defense attorney William Kunstler. His fatherly charms that have been so expertly utilized by filmmakers like Spielberg are on full display, but not discounting the aged, exhausted nature of being an older peace fighter, forced to watch the younger generation butt heads with his generation and fail. Even a brief appearance by Michael Keaton (“Birdman,” “Spotlight”) is plenty of time to remind audiences why he’s still one of the best actors working today.

Yet the film absolutely belongs to Sacha Baron Cohen (“Borat,” “Les Misérables”) and Eddie Redmayne (“Les Misérables,” “The Theory of Everything”). These two will likely compete for awards as much as they are at each other’s throats in the film. Cohen’s more comedic and lighthearted character clashes with Redmayne’s more straight-laced one, and the sheer talent on display when they’re acting off each other is incredible.

Though their confrontations aren’t just a great example of two actors, it’s the thesis statement for the entire film. On one hand, Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman is clearly a stoner and a hippie, a “free love” kind of protestor, cracking jokes and giving a “fuck you” to authority at any moment. Redmayne’s Tom Hayden, on the other hand, is calmer and more put together, understanding that bureaucracy is a part of protesting and the negatives to completely off-putting authority figures.

Sorkin gives each of them, and by extension the two perspectives on how to start revolution, the time necessary to breath and show the positives and negatives inherent in both sides. This, coupled with the blatant displays of corruption on the side of the judiciary system and from Langella’s Judge Julius Hoffman, might remind viewers of the films made in the 80’s and 90’s about the U.S. saving other countries from their corrupt governments.

It gets blunt by the end of things, but Sorkin uses this bluntness intelligently. The third act is full of some very on the nose lines and even an event so metaphorical that it borders on cheesy. However, the film’s serious treatment of the events never falters, and given the severity and timely nature of these events compared to modern day, a bit of bluntness is not just appreciated, but welcomed and earned.

While Sorkin doesn’t stick to exact historical specifics, like his previous works, he makes changes to ensure the most effective dramatic portrayal of the events possible. It’s worth noting this because there are easy things to nitpick in terms of the treatment of certain characters and the amount of screen time they get in the overall story. They get exactly what’s necessary for Sorkin to effectively make their story a bullet point in his retelling and makes sure to give them their due diligence.

This is easily his best film since The Social Network because it finally feels like he’s making a film with something to say again. While his past few works, “Steve Jobs,” “Molly’s Game,” “The Newsroom,” “Moneyball,” haven’t been bad, they’ve felt as though Sorkin was focused on characters instead of making a statement as he so often did earlier in his career. It also helps that this film is better paced and edited overall than his directorial debut, “Molly’s Game,” toning down some of the more hyperactive editing and focusing the story on the events rather than one sole person.

It’s a perfect balance, setting some fantastic performances and characterizations, against a film that clearly has something to say and is going to say it come hell or high water. The film feels sharp and timely, but it doesn’t cheapen any of the dramatic work being done. It never feels like a film that was made because of current events, rather just history repeating itself and Sorkin capitalizing on it in subtle ways.

“Trial of the Chicago 7” may be too blunt for some, might mix historical facts too much for others, and it might just be too spiteful for the rest. But it can’t be denied that this is a powerhouse of a film on nearly every level. The acting, editing, script, direction, each piece of it comes together to form a whole that has something to say and knows exactly how its going to say it. 5/5

The Croods: A New Age - Review

 

A sequel to the timidly received 2013 film “The Croods” has arrived and it has far more in common with the original film than one might think. Not in terms of plot or characters, but in terms of quality.

The sequel picks up somewhere after the first film and follows the Croods, a family of barbaric cave people, and Guy, a smart loner who joined their pack in the first film, finding a walled in oasis home run by the Betterman, a family of far more evolved and intelligent people.

It isn’t worth recapping the plot for numerous reasons. For starters, things get so completely ridiculous by the end of the film that it becomes impossible to guess what’s coming next. It’s an odd strength that the film gains in its latter half; the writers have thrown everything at the wall and just go with what sticks. It results in an erratic and bizarre second half, and while its hard to tell if its necessarily good, it definitely isn’t boring.

This leaves the first half as the weaker part of the film mainly because it retreads so much ground from other films of its ilk. If you’ve seen any other film, animated or not, with an “outsider tries to be accepted by normal people” plot, you’ve seen this film, the first half at least. Director Joel Crawford (“Trolls,” “The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part”) and the film’s six; Dan Hageman (“The LEGO Movie,” “Trollhunters: Tales of Arcadia”), Kevin Hageman (“The LEGO Movie,” “Trollhunters: Tales of Arcadia”), Paul Fisher (“The LEGO Ninjago Movie,” “Abominable”), Bob Logan (“The LEGO Ninjago Movie”), Kirk DeMicco (“Space Chimps,” “The Croods”), Chris Sanders (“Lilo & Stitch,” “How to Train Your Dragon”), credited writers try to inject so freshness into the events but fail to excite in a meaningful way.

So, if the first half of the film is just passable and the second half is bonkers and maybe better, what’s the draw for anyone about the age of six? Well, like the first film, the voice cast does an excellent job at bringing these characters and the world to life.

Nicolas Cage (“National Treasure,” “Face/Off”) gives a full-throated vocal performance here and its just excellent, as do Catherine Keener (“Being John Malkovich,” “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”), Emma Stone (“La La Land,” “Zombieland”), and Ryan Reynolds (“Crazy Stupid Love,” “Deadpool”). It’s worth pointing out that, more so than other animated films, the vocal performances go beyond just celebrities barely acting to collect a paycheck. Like the previous film, there’s a real effort put into these guttural roles and it lends them a texture that would’ve been sorely missed had it not been there.

However, these are the actors who were already great in the previous film. How do the new additions fair? Well, of the three new ones Leslie Mann (“This is 40,” “Blockers”) is the closest to phoning it in. She does get her moment to shine, but it doesn’t come until much later in the film. Kelly Marie Train (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” “Sorry for Your Loss”) gets more to work with and delivers some excellent rebellious teenager moments as the film progresses. Yet, the one actor who shines above nearly all others here is Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”). His character of Phil Betterman is a slimy guy for sure, but Dinklage relishes in each and every line like its his last meal, becoming possibly the first example of a scenery chewing performance in an animated film.

Like the first film and nearly every other multi-million-dollar animated feature, the world of the Croods is extremely gorgeous to behold. Bright colors and bizarre creature design leap from every fold of the world and look absolutely stunning. This is a film that is plainly and simply gorgeous and will surely become a showpiece for home theatres and 4K HDR for some time.

“A New Age” has one big asset and that’s its over the top weirdness. While it might not be much to write home about in its basic plot, the things that come up are extremely weird in the best way possible. Some of the highlights include a heavy metal-infused big hair female warrior group, portable windows, an abundance of bananas, “Banana Bros,” and some Stepford Wives style gas-lighting. It also continues to thrive thanks to a delightful sense of slapstick roughness that, like in the first film, lends the entire film a delightful classic Hanna Barbara kind of wackiness.

This is a weird film to be sure, and whether or not its any good, its definitely not boring. Bolstered by a great voice cast, incredibly colorful visuals, and an overabundance of weirdness, “The Croods: A New Age” is a pleasant adventure that manages to distract for just long enough to be enjoyable. A tighter and more well balance plot could’ve definitely made things go smoother, but as it stands, it’s an alright adventure. Good? That’s up for debate, but enjoyable? Definitely. 3/5

Happiest Season - Review

 

Some might argue that the topic of coming out might be too sour, or even traumatic, to be shoved into a holiday themed romantic comedy, but it could also be argued that shoving such a dramatic topic into an otherwise sweet and sugary rom-com speaks to just how mainstream queer rom-coms have become. Regardless, “Happiest Season” is here from Sony Pictures and Hulu, and it is without a doubt a jolly holiday.

A film like this entirely depends on its cast. The script is important too, but there’s no visual effects, makeup, outlandish sets, or otherworldly scenarios in the rom-com genre. It’s all about the cast, and that is without a doubt the film’s strongest suit. Kristen Stewart (“Twilight,” “Personal Shopper”) and Mackenzie Davis (“Halt and Catch Fire,” “Terminator: Dark Fate”) both lead the film as Abby and Harper, respectively, and their charms and chemistry are effortless. It’s that kind of rare romance where none of it feels Hollywood fake, as if you’re really just watching two people who’re in love and struggling.

They also both show their excellent comedic timing as well as dramatic chops. Given her recent reputation playing stoic or cool characters, its delightful to see Stewart have so many scenes where she plays the awkward third wheel, and the same goes for Davis. Her recent turns in action films like “Terminator: Dark Fate” mean her toned down, sweet yet still attention starved demeanor plays even better than it already would.

The supporting cast is filled with scene-stealers throughout the film, whether it’s Jane, played by Mary Holland (“Blunt Talk,” “The Package”), Harper’s elder sister who’s been starved of attention, Sloane, played by Alison Brie (“Community,” “GLOW”), Harper’s eldest sister who’s had a bit too much attention, or Riley, played by Aubrey Plaza (“Parks & Recreation,” “The Little Hours”), Harper’s ex, and Ted, played by Victor Garber (“Argo,” “Alias”), Harper’s father

The absolute top dollar scene stealers comes in the form of the ever excellent and hilarious Mary Steenburgen (“Step Brothers,” “Melvin and Howard”) as Tipper, Harper’s mother, and Dan Levy (“Schitt’s Creek,” “Coastal Elites”) as John, the gay best friend of Abby. Anyone who’s seen her work on “The Last Man on Earth” or any of her various comedic roles from the last decade knows exactly what kind of manic comedy will come out when she comes on screen. The same goes for Levy, as while his schtick may be familiar to viewer’s of Schitt’s Creek, it doesn’t make it any less charming, heartfelt, or hilarious.

What works so well about “Happiest” comes down to those actors working from such a rich script. It isn’t anything groundbreaking, but there’s a healthy bit of wry humor at play in the proceedings that help prevent things from ever getting too heavy. It’s a testament to the abilities of writer/director Clea DuVall (“But I’m a Cheerleader,” “Girl, Interrupted”) and writer Mary Holland that the film never wallows in its own seriousness.

Don’t misunderstand, this doesn’t cheat these dramatic moments of their weight. In fact quite the opposite; by allowing the humor to feel more natural, as if its invading every facet of the characters lives, it allows the film to feel more real, allows the characters to becomes more three dimensional, and, by extension, makes the dramatic moments land much harder than they otherwise would.

It’s almost a satire at times given how specifically and incisively it zeros in on the heteronormative rich white suburban family culture and the expectations therein. Again though, because of that humor and the effort put into endearing and developing these characters, it means that this isn’t a film that will alienate anyone. It truly feels like a family holiday, both due to the chaos and the love at the center of it all.

There are likely going to be a flood of think pieces that follow the film’s release that dissect how cliched and samey it feels to other previous holiday rom-coms. While that might be true, DuVall and Holland are clearly less interested in the trappings of the plot compared to the people within that plot. When you become this invested in these characters, it means that the surrounding plot contrivances and similarities melt away like snow come springtime.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that, while not a crucial component to character-driven comedies, the camerawork from cinematographer John Guleserian (“Like Crazy,” “Love, Simon”) is excellent. It goes far beyond the typical sitcom style seen in most low/mid budget studio comedies and actually takes the time to frame the holiday glitz and glamour and drama with a careful, if not particularly revelatory, eye.

“Happiest Season” is as cheesy as it needs to be, and a delightful surprise all around thanks to a terrific cast and attention to the characters they’re playing. The plot itself might be well worn, but this film is like that old gift bag your mom keeps year after year. You might be used to how it looks on the outside, but that doesn’t mean it can’t hold something truly special and heartwarming inside. 4.5/5

Freaky - Review

 

After a few successful short films, writing some of the worst “Paranormal Activity” movies (any but the first one), directing the last “Paranormal Activity” film, and writing and directing the easy contender for worst film of 2015 “Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse,” writer/director Christopher Landon finally seemed to hit his stride with 2017’s “Happy Death Day” and its sequel “Happy Death Day 2U.” Those films blended a sly sense of humor with horror thrills that managed to be engaging, if falling prey to the cheap PG-13 horror film squeamishness. However, his latest film “Freaky” manages to be his strongest and best yet, going for the jugular and the weird laugh.

Like the “Death Day” films, “Freaky” is a horror twist on a classic cinema trope, this time focused on the body swap movie. Unpopular teen Millie, played by Kathryn Newton (“Halt and Catch Fire,” “Big Little Lies”), swaps bodies with the Blissfield Butcher, played by Vince Vaughn (“Wedding Crashers,” “Swingers”), after he attempts to kill her with a sacrificial dagger during a full moon.

Typical body swap movie hijinks ensue, with the pair stumbling through their first moments in differing bodies, and its in this first act where the film is its weakest. While they become charming, the introductions to these characters, like Millie’s two friends Nyla, played by Celest O’Connor (“Selah and the Spades”), and Josh, played by Misha Osherovich (“NOS4A2,” “The Goldfinch”), are painfully cliched. The sassy bordering on toxic gay friend and the overly concerned longtime female best friend, the mean teacher, crush who’s out of her league, all of these tropes are brought out to trot themselves around for the teen movie familiars.

It isn’t until about 35 minutes into the film that things really start to get interesting. Coincidentally, this is when the blood starts flowing with reckless abandon. Newton’s performance clearly shows an actress ready to embrace her killer side, putting her well beyond the rolls she’s done in the past in works like “Blockers” and “Detective Pikachu.”

Likewise, it’s here in this teen horror comedy that Vince Vaughn might have his big comeback moment. He is hysterical here as the fish out of water (or out of body), as Millie tries to adjust to her new body. Comparisons could be made to Jack Black’s role as a teenage girl in a middle-aged man’s body from 2018’s “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” but the film naturally gives Vaughn more to work with as Millie is dealing with a lot more than a case of mistaken identity.

The supporting cast is all mostly fine, Millie’s two best friends get the most time outside of herself and the Butcher to craft an identity, but Millie’s mother and sister feel far more one note, wasting what could otherwise have been interesting wrinkles in the body swap formula.

While most of its “kills” feel a bit out of place in what could otherwise easily be marketed as a bizarre teen comedy, its in that bizarreness where “Freaky” becomes its most interesting and engaging self. Not only do some of the jokes get really bizarre, but there’s also an underlying sense of queerness to the entire film. At one point, someone asks what pronouns they should refer to Millie as in the Butcher’s body.

What could have easily been a crass joke is an odd moment of respect as the characters use this to reflect on the weirdness of the situation. Likely due to it being written by two openly gay men, Landon and Michael Kennedy (“Bordertown”), there’s a surprising lack of punching down humor here, instead going for more character and physical gag that bring a sense of warmth to this slasher movie.

While it might feature some great performance and moments of go for broke humor and is refreshingly violent as it flaunts its R rating, “Freaky” is slightly kneecapped by its otherwise cliché ridden plot. As enjoyable as it all is, there’s nothing really new here. It’s a good time sure, and you aren’t laughing at it by any means. It just feels like a small scale cliched romp, anchored by some blow-out performances. It doesn’t really need to be anything more though, and like Millie by the end of the film, its comfortable in its own skin. 3.5/5