The Lost City (2022) - Review

 

As long as Hollywood has excited, there have been movies that exist mostly to just shove pretty people onscreen and have lavish adventures in jungles and other exotic locations. It’s a tried and true formula and it still has some bright spots here and there in modern times. But there have been far more misses than hits in the adventure movie genre recently, but thankfully “The Lost City” is one that hits more than it misses and at least gets the essentials of the genre right.

The film follows Sandra Bullock (“Speed,” “Ocean’s 8”) as Loretta Sage, an adventure novelist who’s kidnapped by billionaire criminal Abigail Fairfax, played with wide eyed delirium by Daniel Radcliffe (“Miracle Workers,” “Swiss Army Man”), who believes that she can lead him to the hidden city featured in her books. So, the dimwitted cover model from her books, Alan Caprison, played by Channing Tatum (“21 Jump Street,” “Logan Lucky”), decides to set off and rescue her, much to the dismay of her agent Beth, played by Da'Vine Joy Randolph (“Dolemite is My Name,” “People of Earth”).

“The Lost City” lives and dies on its humor, where it thankfully succeeds for a majority of the time. The banter back and forth between Bullock and Tatum is great, with the pair working better as a comedy duo more than a romantic one for a majority of the film.  They have the kind of wide-eyed, screwball comedic timing where you can’t tell if either of them are actually incredibly smart or really really stupid. Sure, they’re both riffing on comedic stylings and personas they’ve played before, but they make great foils for each other and the snappy gags and dialogue from writer/directors Aaron and Adam Nee (“The Last Romantic,” “Band of Robbers”) and writers Dana Fox (“Cruella,” “Isn’t It Romantic?”), Oren Uziel (“The Cloverfield Paradox,” “Mortal Kombat (2021)”), and Seth Gordon (“Horrible Bosses,” “Identity Thief”).

Really, the supporting cast ends up outshining the two leads in most situations. Radcliffe is a delirious delight, spouting mad ramblings and innuendo with a straight face and crazy eyes. Randolph is also excellent, playing a straight woman in an otherwise crazy world and doing a delightful job at it. Brad Pitt (“Ocean’s Eleven,” “Fight Club”) shows up for an extended cameo sequence that feels so much like straight faced parody that it seems plucked out of a much sillier film. And, of course, there’s Patti Harrison (“Together Together,” “I Think You Should Leave”) who’s becoming more famous for her scene stealing supporting roles than any of her lead actress work.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with “The Lost City” on paper, and in execution most of the film is done well. It avoids the ugly green screen shoddiness seen in recent works like “Death on the Nile” and “Jungle Cruise” by, shockingly, shooting on actual dressed sets and real locations. But, unfortunately, the biggest problem is within the writing on a large scale. When people say, “they don’t make ‘em like they used to” they’re not normally referring to the sets or locations, but thankfully that’s one aspect where “The Lost City” welcomely does “make ‘em like they used to.”

The moment to moment jokes and gags are great, and there’s a sense of momentum and adventure for sure. But the romance is fairly under cooked and isn’t easily bought. So much of the time is spent joking back and forth that there’s hardly any time for actual romance apart from one dance. Likewise, the plot is almost ridiculously cliched, and by the time the third act hits, it's as if everything that the film previously was great at goes out the window. The last twenty-five minutes have the worst, or just least, jokes, there’s some truly bafflingly bad background green screen work, and it goes for an unearned emotional moment that falls flat. It just loses all its momentum and starts to feel boring.

It’s really a shame as Bullock, Tatum, and the rest of the cast are really game. Any sort of genuine screwball comedy traits seem to be mostly squandered under the weight of making a four-quadrant studio hit. To be fair, the film isn’t bad. It’s quite enjoyable, if not particularly memorable, for a majority of its runtime, and it manages to be the kind of movie we don’t see very often: an adventure that just wants to have fun and that’s pretty much it. It’s just a shame that so much of that fun gets bogged down in elements that either don’t work or just aren’t needed. 3/5

Everything Everywhere All At Once - Review

 

It’s virtually impossible to begin to comprehend a film like this. A sci-fi action comedy drama with elements of martial arts and psychedelic multi-cultural, multi-generational emotional family drama as a central theme, produced on a fraction of the budget one might assume a film like this would get. It’s bewildering, it’s astonishing, it’s confusing, it’s crude, it’s overbearing, and it threatens to all collapse in on itself like a black hole numerous times. And what emerges is the kind of film we only get once every decade or so. A film that cuts through the rest of the fluff and almost accidentally cements itself as one of the most astonishing achievements in the medium.

The film follows Evelyn, played by Michelle Yeoh (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” “Crazy Rich Asians”), who finds herself contacted by an alternate universe version of her husband Waymond, played by Ke Huy Quan (“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” “The Goonies”), to warn her that a powerful evil is threatening all of the infinite multiverses and that she is the only one who can stop it. That might be where the back of the box summary ends, but with a writing/directing duo like Daniels; made up of Daniel Kwan (“Swiss Army Man”) and Daniel Scheinert (“Swiss Army Man,” “The Death of Dick Long”), don’t even begin to assume that’s where this truly insane film begins and ends.

There are a hundred things to talk about regarding “Everything”, from its technical achievements to its incredibly strong emotional core. But it all comes back to Michele Yeoh, turning in a remarkable performance at the center of all this absurdity. She fully embraces the weirdness inherent in Daniels and their directing style, as well as just this project itself. There’s never a moment where her talent wavers, be it doing kung-fu against an army of inter-universal warriors or dealing with family strife and taxes. If there’s any justice in the world, then this should be an easy first time Oscar win for an actress who’s already an absolute legend in cinema across the globe.

Ke Huy Quan might be the film’s biggest success story though. After retiring from acting as a child star after roles like Short Round in “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”, he’s returned with his first major acting role in over two decades. Not only is the character himself a beacon of wholesome optimism and a ray of sunshine in the world of cinema, but Quan so perfectly embodies the deep humanity and kindness inherent in a role like this. It might seem silly to say, but performing a character so genuinely kind and sweet is a rare and difficult thing to do, and Quan does so effortlessly and ends up being the heart of the movie, always beating at the center of everything.

Starring alongside Yeoh and Quan is Stephanie Hsu (“The Path,” “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”) who’s role, on paper, is more complex than either Quan or Yeoh’s for reasons we won’t discuss here for fear of spoilers. She manages to perfectly blend the absurdist comedy that Daniels is known for with the kind of drama a film and a role like this requires without ever faltering. The same goes for industry legend James Hong (“Big Trouble in Little China,” “Kung Fu Panda”), who’s role as Evelyn’s father Gong Gong is a multilayered highlight despite its initial seemingly low stakes. Jamie Lee Curtis (“Halloween,” “Freaky Friday (2003)”) also throws herself into the weird world of “Everything”, turning what could’ve been a five minute throwaway role for a “big Hollywood actor” into a performance that easily ranks with the best of her entire career. Even the smaller, blink and you’ll miss them, roles from Jenny Slate (“Parks and Recreation,” “Zootopia”) or Harry Shum Jr. (“Glee,” “Shadowhunters”) are both hysterical in their own right and instantly memorable, with Shum Jr. even turning in a remarkably emotional performance despite only being on screen for maybe five or ten minutes total.

What makes each performance so good though is the tight control Daniels has over every single one. Directing from their own script, the pair have such a clear and controlled vision for this immensely chaotic experience that it's impossible to separate the two. Their immense creative control over the project, something that could be interpreted as a control freak ideology, has turned out the kind of movie that could never be made by accident. Despite the googly eyes, distorted universes, and cream cheese, it's an incredible kind of controlled chaos that only directors at the absolute pinnacle of their talent could turn in.

Even the phrase “it's not for everyone” isn’t applicable here because the craft and talent on display is so excellent that it basically overcomes any and all squeamishness that a viewer might have over the sense of humor or themes, because it's just so much damned fun to spend time in this world (or worlds), with these characters. The sense and style of humor that Daniels employs here is a textbook definition of how to use comedy. They understand that if you disarm your audience with silliness and laughs, that they’ll be more open to wilder concepts and emotional beats, therefore making the two go hand in hand. If it was any less silly or wild, it would be an inarguably worse film.

Possibly the most impressive thing about “Everything Everywhere All At Once” is how it manages to excel in almost every feat; technical and emotional. One moment, you’re laughing uncontrollably at an absolute absurd moment, the next your jaw is on the floor with how cool that same moment looks and is executed, and then right after that you’re in tears because this moment of pure absurdity has now somehow been brought back around to a realm of pure emotional truth. It all vibrates to a positively electric and euphoric score from post-rock band Son Lux, generating a vibe that no other film ever has before. It’s a jack of all trades, and yet still the film is a master of them all.

At a runtime of two-hours-and-nineteen-minutes, the film maintains an expert level of pacing, slowing down when needed but also keeping the tone and speed of it all brisk. It’s not as hyperactive as one might expect, and it also doesn’t slow to a crawl like most stereotypical “indie” movies do. From a technical standpoint, it's awe-inspiring. The editing is perfect, cutting back and forth between overall moments and individual scenes with a level of detail that seems bewildering. The cinematography from Larkin Seiple (“Cop Car,” “Swiss Army Man”) is also top notch, framing each moment perfectly, even as those moments move between art styles, aspect ratios, time periods, and more.

Even just beginning to imagine how a film like this is pitched, not just to a studio but to the people who’s jobs it is to craft it all, is a fascinating experience. There’s so much genius overlap in various moments that it almost becomes a guessing game of technical feats; feats with visual effects crafted by just seven people. It shares DNA with works like “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” in providing audiences with such an engaging world and story from both a writing and technical level that it’ll likely be studied for years to come.

To break one of the rules of professional critique for a moment, allow me to speak personally. When I see a movie multiple times in the theatres, it's typically for one of three reasons. With something like “Spider-Man: No Way Home”, it's to experience it with a massive crowd as many times as possible before that’s no longer an option. For “The Batman”, it's to experience a story of that scale on as large a screen as possible as many times as possible. For a movie like “Everything Everywhere All At Once”, it's a purer and simpler reason: just because the film is so incredible that I just have to see it again, as soon as I can.

It’s been a very long time since the world has gotten a film like this, a work with a perspective and ideology so pure and heartfelt, but so willing to embrace the absurdity of it all in such an assured way. It’s the rare film that needs no disclaimers; it’s a perfect work of cinematic triumph. In a world so overcome with despair and heartbreak, Daniels have gifted us a film that seems like it jumped fully formed from their brains as a gift to the world. A silly, absurd, beautiful, heartwarming, magnificent, action packed, gut wrenching gift of pure creativity and raw emotion. Or, for a film that’s anything but simple, in simpler terms: a masterpiece and one of the greatest films ever made. 5/5

Apollo 10 1/2: A Space Age Childhood - Review

 

There’s nothing like a good hangout movie and nobody does them better than Richard Linklater (“School of Rock,” “Dazed and Confused”). While he’s absolutely tackled a fair number of plot driven features, the Austin born directors most well known features are those that follow the loosest of overall plots. Most of the time, the movies are just an excuse to hang out, lounge around, and talk about the good times, man.

So it makes sense that his latest film, another rotoscoped animated film, follows his previous forays into the technology with “Waking Life” and “A Scanner Darkly”, is another one of his hangout films. However, whether because of the concept, marketing, or how the film is structured, “Apollo 10 ½: A Space Age Childhood” feels far more unwieldy than his previous features and less satisfying as a result.

Set during the summer of 1969 in Austin, Texas, the film follows Stanley, voiced by Milo Coy, in his film debut, a grade school kid who’s secretly recruited by two NASA workers, voiced by Glen Powell (“Everybody Wants Some!,” “Scream Queens”) and Zachary Levi (“Shazam!,” “Tangled”), to be the actual first person to travel to the moon after NASA accidentally builds the lunar module too small for a grown astronaut. Sprinkled throughout are anecdotes and stories about Stan’s childhood growing up in the 60s, narrated by a grown Stan, voiced by Jack Black (“School of Rock,” “Kung-Fu Panda”).

The film’s largest problem is one that can only partly be blamed on marketing. While the trailer heavily leans into the “kid goes to space” aspect, as does the poster and title, the actual traveling to space idea only really takes up about a third of the film. It’s fun to watch, with the animation effectively blending the live based actors and the fully animated backdrops and sets, and it's undoubtedly the film’s emotional and tonal highlight.

Otherwise though, the rest of the film is merely older Stanley narrating his childhood growing up in Austin. What feels like it should be a five or ten minute diversion, a “we’ll get back to this later” type of detour, ends up taking up almost an hour of the 98 minute film. That’s not to say it isn’t enjoyable, and it often feels like sitting back and catching up with a friend or an uncle as they tell stories. But the feeling can be fleeting by the time all is over.

The gorgeous animation is a major saving grace for the film as a whole, invoking a unique style to tell this story that blends real life and imagination and not just in the space parts. Thick chunky lines and bold colors all wash over this world to create a kind of idealized state that would seem garish if done in live action. It’s also just a technical feat, and a major step up from the last time Linklater employed this kind of style with “A Scanner Darkly.”

It’s a fun ride to be sure, and it's over and done with before it even has a chance to overstay its welcome. Yet this might be the first time where Linklater’s two competing styles clash in a way that seems to be a negative to both. The hangout vibes are sabotaged by the grand scale of the “kind going to the moon” plot and the overarching “kid going to the moon plot” is kneecapped by a film that seems uninterested in spending its time on it.

But it’s still gorgeous to look at and fun to spend time with. It's effective in its evocative goals, and Jack Black has a surprisingly soothing voice when he isn’t screaming about rock or kung-fu. It’s arguably a perfect film for Netflix to distribute: not without merit, but lacking in any real long term memorability. It’s still worth watching, but likely won’t have any long term staying power like previous Linklater lounging hits. 3.5/5

X - Review

 

Every few years it feels like another genre gets a defining film from seemingly out of the blue. Sci-fi, action, drama, comedy, etc., and it makes sense. Given that more and more filmmakers are going into the genres they loved when growing up, of course they’re going to have new ideas and ways to spice things up. But sometimes the best solution is to just go for the tried and true, the simple and creepy, the old and the young.

“X”, the new film from Ti West (“The House of the Devil,” “In a Valley of Violence”), is never specific about where it takes its title from, but suffice it to say that its likely from the old X rating, given to horror films that were so graphic they were considered obscene (like the original “The Evil Dead,” and “A Clockwork Orange” and “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2”) or to pornography released in theatres back when that was a thing that used to happen. Because if there’s one thing “X” clearly takes inspiration from, it's films from both those camps.

Set in 1979 Texas, the film follows a group of 20 somethings; Maxine, played by Mia Goth (“A Cure for Wellness,” “Suspiria (2018)”), Lorraine, played by Jenna Ortega (“Scream (2022),” “The Fallout”), Wayne, played by Martin Henderson (“The Strangers: Prey at Night,” “Everest”), Jackson, played by Scott Mescudi (aka Kid Cudi), Bobby-Lynne, played by Brittany Snow (“Pitch Perfect,” “American Dreams”), and RJ, played by Owen Campbell (“The Americans,” “The Miseducation of Cameron Post”), who all decide to travel to rural Texas and rent a cabin from an old farmer, played by Stephen Ure (“Hounds,” “Mortal Engines”), and shoot a pornographic film in it unbeknownst to him and his wife, also played by Goth.

The younger cast is so excellent in their fantastic delivery of the material. It’s a blend between the cheesy style of acting from classic horror films of the 70s, without ever sacrificing actual depth and development as the film progresses. It’s the kind of delivery and writing that makes it hurt when they die, making each kill hit a bit more given that you actually want them to survive. Goth and Ortega in particular are continuing to establish themselves as the new young faces of horror, and if their careers continue with roles as inspired as this, they could easily find themselves mentioned alongside Jamie Lee Curtis and other scream queen royalty.

Stephen Ure is less exciting, if for no other reason than the fact that, compared to his wife, he feels resoundingly one note. Its clear that there’s more going on that just being a murderous old man, but it never really hits like it does with his wife. She, on the other hand, is played with a quiet menace and pain by Goth. Done up in pounds of prosthesis, you’d be hard pressed to notice that they’re the same actress at all, and Goth is fantastic in both roles.

Being a low budget horror film, there’s plenty of gruesome gore around every turn, but the very deliberate use of it brings up one of the film’s biggest strong points. West is clearly trying to play the overt titillation of the porn elements against the overt torture of the horror elements to great effect. It’s a fun kind of juxtaposition, playing the character’s moans against their groans in extremely smart ways. It lends itself to amusing moments, to sad moments, and gut wrenching moments throughout.

This might not be surprising to anyone familiar with A24, but there are plenty of conversations to be had throughout about the nature of dirty films, consent, and religion. However, it also means that by the time the third act comes and the blood really starts flowing, those conversations go away. It's frustrating because the film clearly wants to say something and is so strong in what it does say, either verbal or visually, that it becomes almost disappointing when it remembers that its a slasher film and that all of that has to be put on pause, resulting in a third act that ends up being the least interesting part of the film.

But that’s not to say that “X” isn’t fun. It manages to craft a tale of horror and heart, making you feel for each death and ponder each question. It's hard to say if anyone could make a horror film like this that succeeds in both the conversations and the bloodshed, but Ti West gets about as close as anyone likely could with only a few caveats. Really, the entire cast is the film’s best aspect, as they effortlessly sell the horror and the humor and the heart. It’s titillation and torture, the best of both worlds. What’s not to enjoy? 3.5/5

Turning Red - Review

 

There’s no more awkward time in anyone’s life than puberty. Your body is going through changes of course, but it also happens to occur right alongside the time when most parents stop “understanding” their kids. While this time frame has made for plenty of entertaining films in the past, none have ever felt as fresh or emotionally invigorating as “Turning Red.”

Pixar’s latest follows Meilin Lee, voiced by Rosalie Chiang, a thirteen year old girl who gains the ability to turn into a giant Red Panda whenever she experiences a strong emotion. It's far more complicated than that, as most films often are, but going any further would be a disservice to the many emotionally satisfying and delightful turns the story takes.

Chiang is excellent as Meilin. She nails the wildly varying emotions of a thirteen year old girl dealing with something like this, but never losing any of the kid spirit within her. She has impeccable comedic timing as well, nailing the delivery on some of the film’s funniest moments and lines. Her friend group made up of Miriam, Abby, and Priya, voiced by Ava Morse (“Ron’s Gone Wrong”), Hyein Park, and Maitreyi Ramakrishnan (“Never Have I Ever”) respectively, are also incredibly charming. It’s so much fun to watch them interact with each other, bouncing jokes and lines around effortlessly. It’s easily one of the most believable friend groups in film in recent years.

But Sandra Oh (“Grey’s Anatomy,” “Killing Eve”) might very well be the film’s stand out performance. Oh’s dramatic talents have been well documented for years, but her comedic skills are less documented. Sure, she’s been in stuff like “Set It Up” or the HBO show “Arliss,” but she’s never been as funny as she is here. Her delivery is perfect on every single line, comedic or not, and she brings the right amount of gravitas required for the film’s more dramatic moments. It’s one of the best vocal performances Pixar has ever turned in, plain and simple. It speaks to not only the excellent writing on display, but the talent of the voice cast that even the smaller roles, like Meilin’s father Jin, voiced by Orion Lee (“First Cow,” “Only You”), annoying schoolmate Tyler, voiced by Tristan Allerick Chen, and Meilin’s grandmother, voiced by (“Daredevil (2015),” “Awkwafina is Nora from Queens”) all manage to stand out in various ways throughout the adventure.

Most of the things that make “Turning Red” great can also apply to many of Pixar’s previous films. It’s gorgeously animated, the voice cast is stellar, the emotional beats are potent, but the film is still extremely funny as well. But, “Red” has a kind of energy that Pixar simply hasn’t had in a very long time. It feels so vibrant and buoyant, as if at any moment a character might bounce out of the screen.

It’s a kind of energy that it almost feels like Pixar wasn’t allowed to have before. Be it because of technical limitations preventing them from doing this style before or the stereotype of Pixar films always being “serious”, “Turning Red” continues in the trend started by “Luca” by still maintaining dramatic, serious emotional moments that are bolstered by some brilliant stylized animation.

Moments of facial expressions, freeze frames, character’s movements, and line deliveries are all perfectly tailored to be just as expressive and energetic as they need to be. It’s a wonderful film to look at, of course because of the high level of beautiful art and color poured into every Pixar film, but it's also gorgeous to look at in motion because of the level of energy kept up throughout the entire runtime.

The score from Ludwig Göransson (“Black Panther,” “Tenet”) pumps with an infectious blend of various synth and electronic instruments with Asian instruments as well. It’s the kind of score that you hear while watching the film and make mental notes to listen to outside of the context of the film; its just so infectious and full of energy. The same can be said for the boy-band themed songs written for the film by Billie Eilish and Finneas O’Connell, as they’re so perfectly of the time period that it feels as if someone reached back to 2002 and plucked them right out of the era.

Writer/Director Domee Shi (“Bao”) already has an Academy Award for her short “Bao” and it's evident from the very beginning of “Red” that she’s firing on all cylinders. For a first time feature film director, “Red” has such remarkably even pacing and vision that it feels like it was crafted by one of Pixar’s veterans. It helps that the script, co-written by playwright Julia Cho (“Big Love,” “Fringe”) has such a healthy balance between big laughs and the kind of down to earth moments the film needs to be successful. It also nails the exact way that early-teen girls talk to each other, and also the lingo and references that are necessary for a film set in such a specific time and place.

It’s also a movie that feels radical in a quiet way. It’s Pixar’s first film to be directed only by a woman (the studio only has one other film directed by a woman, “Brave,” which was co-directed by Brenda Chapman), and the writing and producing staff are all women as well. It also features so many little moments that don’t feel groundbreaking while watching the film, it's only after the fact that you realize there are. Forget about thinking of another animated film that addresses puberty in such a calm and normalizing way, it's hard to think of another animated film that’s ever even mentioned pads before.

This may be the first film from Domee Shi, but one can only hope that there are many more on the horizon after this. “Turning Red” is an immediate Pixar gem, a modern classic with gorgeous animation and a heart-melting story, with impeccable voice acting that’s also Pixar’s funniest movie in years. Like the very best movies from the studio, it not only feels immediately like “A film by Pixar” but it also feels immediately like “A film by Domee Shi.” 5/5

After Yang - Review

 

Grief is such a multifaceted emotion; it makes sense that so many films have been based around the simple idea of how to process it. “After Yang”, the latest film from South Korean writer/director Kogonada (“Columbus”) is one such film, adding some science-fiction world building and generational outlooks to the tale in an effort to tell a story of sadness and death in the digital age.

The film follows Jake, played by Colin Farrell (“In Bruges,” “True Detective”), as he and his wife Kyra, played by Jodie Turner-Smith (“Queen & Slim,” “The Last Ship”), as they attempt to have their young daughter Mika’s, played by Malea Emma Tjandrawidjaja, android Yang, played by Justin H. Min (“The Umbrella Academy”), repaired after he ceases to function. This leads them on a journey of reflection as they think back on their lives and relationships with Yang, including a relationship he had with a young woman named Ada, played by Haley Lu Richardson (“Unpregnant,” “The White Lotus”).

“After Yang” is a visual treat to be certain. The simple but elegant designs of this near-future world are quietly beautiful, but it’s in the little details where the world is fleshed out further. For example, seeing Mika get a pet fish from a pet shop and bring it home in a glass container that almost resembles a fish bowl mixed with an action figure packaging helps to build the futuristic world the film occupies.

There’s plenty of brutalist architecture mixed with open doorways hidden by curtains that gives the entire film a very different feel from the neon “hard sci-fi” worlds of other future-set films. It’s also one of the few recent films to feature shifting aspect ratios where the change complements the film. Each shift is not only consistent but purposeful, with differing levels of film grain and color grading to give each a distinct punctuation.

Farrell’s performance is understated, but with intent. His grief is confusing and heavy, and we the audience are allowed to piece it together with him. This never hides the immense charm Farrell has when on-screen, and its utilized well here. Turner-Smith is also great, and her performance as well as the film itself do wonders in showcasing a different kind of grief compared to her husband’s. She’s still grieving, but processing it differently, helping to connect the film’s main theme.

Richardson is just as great as she’s ever been, if a bit underutilized by the film. She makes an impact, but simply isn’t in the story as much as the other characters, diminishing said impact and character in the plot slightly. Min is so excellent as Yang; he gives such a wonderfully understated and curious performance. It’s childlike without being childish, calm without being boring, and emotionally resonant without being sappy. It’s such a fantastically simple performance that sneaks up on you with its excellence.

As wonderfully acted and quietly emotional the film is, it can’t shake the generally slowness of its pace. It’s absolutely a deliberate choice, not some after effect or accident. But the fact of the matter is that even if it is deliberate, it limits the appeal of the film slightly. This is a well told story that looks gorgeous and has some great acting, but it’s also quiet, slow, with plenty of moments of simply sitting quietly as characters think to themselves and mumble quietly. It’s on purpose but is nevertheless a bit alienating.

“After Yang” is a simple and wonderful movie, the kind where you lean back when its over and smile to yourself, thinking “that was a good movie.” Its emotions are complicated and well-acted, and it’s just an overall gorgeous project to watch. Its slowness can be a bit of a hurdle for some, but it doesn’t take away from the tale being told and the power of its examination of grief. 4/5

The Batman - Review

 

Yes, it’s another “Batman” film. Another dark and gritty take on the caped crusader, the world’s greatest detective, donned in a full leather batsuit and with a grim, grizzled voice. Yet, for as many other live action films starring Bruce Wayne and his alter ego, something about Matt Reeves’s (“Cloverfield,” “War for the Planet of the Apes”) interpretation feels just so different, so refreshing, and so hopeful.

Robert Pattinson (“Twilight,” “The Lighthouse”) manages to overcome every single mean tweet, snide comment, and backhanded reference to Twilight that’s been made after his casting was announced. He is so perfectly in tune with Reeves’s version of Batman. It’s a symbiotic relationship between the two, and it's clear that without Pattinson, the film would be fundamentally different and not nearly as good. There’s a blurred line between his Bruce and his Batman because there’s a blurred line there for Bruce as well. While some may call the role a more “emo” interpretation of the character, it's a fundamentally different and exciting take on the character, focusing more on a younger, inexperienced Batman rather than a hulking mass of multi-million dollar muscle in an expensive leather suit.

Likewise, the film’s supporting cast is also top notch. Jeffery Wright (“Angels in America,” “Westworld”) is instantly the best Jim Gordon we’ve seen on the big screen. His dialogue with Batman, the back and forth between the two, their chemistry, and his own mini-arc throughout the story are all wonderfully refreshing and so entertaining. Zoë Kravitz (“Big Little Lies,” “High Fidelity (2020)”) also delivers an incredible performance, losing herself in the cattiness (pun fully intended) of Catwoman without ever letting it turn sour or into self parody. Paul Dano (“Little Miss Sunshine,” “There Will Be Blood”) meanwhile is carefully deployed by Reeves to make his Riddler as terrifying and intriguing as possible. It’s not a role over exaggerated by marketing, but those who go in expecting him to be in two-thirds of the film will likely be disappointed but also thoroughly shocked all the same.

The rest of the supporting cast might not have as much screen time as the former, but they take advantage of what they’re given to make the biggest impressions possible. John Turturro (“Do the Right Thing,” “The Big Lebowski”), Peter Sarsgaard (“Jackie,” “Dopesick”), and Andy Serkis (“Black Panther,” “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King”) all play their cards calmly and simply, maintaining a great grounded nature to their characters. Meanwhile, Colin Farrell’s (“In Bruges,” “Alexander”) Penguin is as delightfully over the top as you’d expect, but not without his own restraint and grounded nature either.

Realism is a great thing to discuss next, because while the film is gritty and grim and dark and “realistic”, it's not in the immediate first way you’d think. This is not the real world, “Gotham is basically just Chicago”, hyper real sheen of the Nolan films. Rather, Reeves doesn’t go for realism necessarily; rather, the better word for it is believability.

Every drip of rain, art deco interior, shadowy alleyway, and seedy bridge underside helps to build this version of Gotham to life in a way that Gotham hasn’t felt since the Burton films. But its still the best of both worlds: it's the believable realism of the Nolan films without their bland sheen combined with the exaggerated nature of the Burton ones without their backlot set look.

Michael Giacchino (“Up,” “Inside Out”) has been teasing audiences with his score over the past few weeks, doling out individual tracks every few days, but there’s simply nothing like listening to it in the moment. This new theme for the caped crusader is instantly iconic and memorable, and the delicate way Giacchino plays with music throughout the film is just awe-inspiring.

Likewise, the way the film is shot is just truly something else. Not only is the heavy use of colors like reds and blacks so fun to watch, but cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Zero Dark Thirty,” “The Mandalorian”) shoots the film with such care for every shot. Moments of dark alleyways and Batman simply walking into crime scenes carry such intense weight. It’s hard to describe it any more than just being “well shot” but it's that kind of film that ends up being a playground for your eyes.

It’s a playground for your mind as well, because Reeves and his co-writer Peter Craig (“The Town,” “Bad Boys for Life”) have crafted a story that feels as refreshing and good as the best Batman excursions, in film or not. It’s a younger Bruce and therefore a younger Batman. He isn’t as well equipped, mentally or technologically, to handle a lot of what's thrown his way. He gets hit, knocked down, stumbles, gets things wrong. It’s thrilling to watch because it feels like for the first time (possibly ever) a film understands the duality of Batman, what he represents for the citizens and for the criminals and what he can represent for himself.

Is it the most original story? Not at all, the David Fincher/”Se7en”/”Zodiac” allusions are clear from the start, but it doesn’t have to be. Rather, as long as the film’s internal logic is secure and it keeps the central theme in focus then it all works. It also helps that the film seems to focus on elements of Batman that, while some have been explored before, haven’t been explored like this in a film before. It’s boldly about police corruption and power, privilege for those who want to help and want to hurt. It’s even a story about the world’s greatest detective that actually lets him be a detective. Groundbreaking stuff.

Even the runtime, a behemoth of just four minutes shy of three hours, isn’t a struggle. Sure, it means actually planning when to watch the film is a bit of a struggle, but when you’re actually watching it, it flies by. Every moment is well paced, every discovery, action sequence, it all flies by with such an expert pace that it becomes almost comforting.

Speaking of comforting, despite the allusions to “Zodiac” and “Se7en” and other serial killer films, there’s an odd kind of comfort to it all. Is it dark, grim, gritty? Absolutely, but it's dark without being depressing. It doesn’t sacrifice stakes or intensity for this either. There are plenty of moments that will make audiences jump or catch their breath as they exhale, but it never feels like a slog. Arguably, this is yet another thing it has in common with those Fincher films; the balance of entertainment, intrigue, and fear.

Without seeing it for yourself, it's really hard to properly communicate just how excellent Reeves’s “The Batman” is. Think back to when “Blade Runner 2049,” “The LEGO Movie,” or “Mad Max Fury Road” were released. Remember how people were shouting from the rooftops how good those were and most likely reacted with, “Okay, but how good are they actually?” Add this into that category, because it's impossible to talk about just how good it is on every single level without spoiling things.

Every decade or so it feels like a new movie comes out that changes the superhero genre. But even for the best, it's hard to break through to the other side, to become something more than just “a fun, exciting” time and to move into something truly game changing. “The Batman”, is one of those films, easily classifiable next to the greats like “The Dark Knight” and “Spider-Man 2”, possibly even squeaking out the former as the best Batman film. But that specific distinction is something only time will tell.

What matters right now is that this is a masterpiece of a film. A vision and story with such a specific vision, specific things to say, and such a specific execution that it becomes a kind of miracle. It’s thrillingly acted, expertly shot, with music that will become legendary and a story that will be remembered as one of Batman’s best in any medium. Quite simply put, it is an astonishing drama that never loses a sense of fun which will be talked about for years. 5/5