Challengers - Review: Game, Set, Matchmaker

 

There have been plenty of sports films before, but there’s never been a sports film quite like a Luca Guadagnino (“Call Me By Your Name,” “Bones and All”) sports film. The director has brought his penchant for sex, skin, bodies, and sweat to Tennis, a sport most commonly associated with repetition and, along with writer Justin Kuritzkes, delivered a combative, competitive love triangle film that exhilarates and excites and titillates from the jump.

“Challengers” follows the thirteen-year-long love triangle between Tashi Duncan, played by Zendaya (“Dune (2021),” “euphoria”), a former tennis played turned coach forced to retire due to an injury, her husband Art Donaldson, a tennis champion played by Mike Faist (“West Side Story (2021),” “Pinball: The Man Who Saved the Game”), and Patrick Zweig, Art’s former best friend and low circuit tennis player played by Josh O’Connor (“God’s Own Country,” “The Crown”). It traces their meeting in college up until the events of a wild card challenger event in New Rochelle, NY, 13 years later.

Before we can get into anything else at all, know this: Zendaya is spectacular. Every member of the main trio is, but there’s just something so particularly magnetic about her performance. Yes, the entire film is essentially based around Art and Patrick’s desire of her and her manipulation of that desire to get what she wants, but the fact that Guadagnino has almost crafted the film to put the audience in Art and Patrick’s position as well is nothing short of genius.

Faist and Donaldson are no slouches either. The scenes with the two of them paired up, showcasing the evolution and crumbling of their friendship due to Tashi’s meddling are just as thrilling as the tennis matches themselves. It’s the kind of film where you can never truly tell what someone is going to do, how they’ll react, or if they’ll end up regretting it later.

For a film mostly about tennis, Guadagnino has managed to work with cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom (“Call Me By Your Name,” “Suspiria (2018)”) to shoot it in the most fascinatingly interesting ways possible. Not only are the standard dialogue scenes well shot, but the tennis matches are pure adrenaline, shot in specific ways that boggle the mind. Couple that with an invigorating score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (“The Social Network,” “Soul”), and you have a recipe for a film that is tailor made to get blood pumping in more ways than one.

There’s a lot of sweat throughout the entire film, and not all of it is related to tennis. Kuritzkes and Guadagnino craft a tale full of metaphor and symbolism, where the back and forth of a tennis match can easily be about more than lobbing a ball back and forth.

On paper, it could be easy to call this a simple relationship drama and leave it at that, but it's not just that. It’s the specific combination of each individual element. Yes, the dialogue, music, cinematography, acting, etc. would all still be compelling in different separate films. But combined in this specific way, it creates a movie that is more than the sum of its already excellent parts.

“Challengers” is a giddy, thrilling drama equal parts sexy, funny, and invigorating. It’s the best Zendaya has ever been and represents a cross section between Guadagnino’s auteurist styles and broader audience appeal. The result is a concoction that is a delight to sit back and stew in, until it pumps you up so much you can't help but stand up and scream. 5/5

Civil War - Review: America the Beautiful

 

Making a film about a fictional future civil war taking place within the United States in our current political landscape is going to be quite the volatile decision. Very few people could take on such a task, and at least take it on with the kind of attention, nuance, and intelligence it would require to not turn into a two hour “Call of Duty” level. Is Alex Garland (“Ex Machina,” “28 Days Later”) that person? In some ways yes, and in some ways no.

The film follows a group of journalists consisting of Lee Smith, a war photojournalist played by Kirsten Dunst (“The Virgin Suicides,” “Bring It On”), her colleague from Reuters, Joel, played by Wagner Moura (“Narcos,” “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish”), a veteran New York Times journalist, Sammy, played by Stephen McKinley Henderson (“Lady Bird,” “Dune (2021)”), and a young photographer who idolizes Lee, Jessie, played by Cailee Spaeny (“Priscilla,” “Devs”). The group finds themselves on a road trip from New York to Washington D.C. to interview the dictatorial President, played by Nick Offerman (“Parks and Recreation,” “The Founder”), as a civil war caused by his actions in his third term ravages the United States.

There are some immediately fascinating elements to this film that bear discussing, but first and foremost, the performances are stellar. Even if you think the content of the film isn’t great or turn your nose to the general premise, the performances across the board manage to be exceptionally grounded and real without feeling flat or downplayed at any moment. Dunst in particular is a massive highlight, and Spaeny as well proves to be a great foil as we watch a younger and older generation feud over how to do this kind of job. Henderson and Moura are also great, but the film is completely stolen by Dunst and Spaeny.

While it may be the largest budgeted film A24 has ever released, it is still astonishing what Garland has managed to pull off for a price tag of just $50 million. Numerous shots seem so barren and open, but without any sense of CGI trickery. So many moments are packed with visual trickeries and staged moments that seem almost impossible to pull off for a production of this size and for this budget, but it’s not only achieved but done spectacularly. The only aspect of the production that feels a bit off is the score, from composers Ben Salisbury (“Men,” “Ex Machina”) and Geoff Barrow (“Men,” “Ex Machina”). Some moments feel perfect, and others simply feel like they’re underscored by a lot of thumping, cliched electronic music.

The real meat of “Civil War” is in the titular war and what is and isn’t shown. This is a film about perception, and much of the tale is spent with our pack of journalists, and as they travel the country, we get plenty of discussions on the nature of their job as observers. One character asks another how they would photograph them if they were killed on their journey. Because of this focus on observing, the film itself takes a remarkably subdued approach to the central conflict. We never learn what the war was about, what the President did to cause it, what “each side is fighting for.”

As opposed to other films where this could seem like a cowardly decision, here it fits as a distinct and purposeful choice to make a film about perceptions and observing. At one point, our group finds themselves pinned down by a sniper with a pair of soldiers. They refused to identify which side they’re fighting for and when questioned as to why they’re shooting at the sniper, they simply reply “We’re shooting at him because he’s shooting at us.” Lee at one point mentions that she photographed “the Antifa massacre.” The characters know what this event is, but we the audience don’t know if the name refers to an Antifa group doing the massacring or being massacred.

The lack of specificity will likely frustrate some and anger others. Why make a film like this if you aren’t willing to commit to a certain “side” or narrative? Much of the film is about questioning those who believe they can stay neutral. A few times Lee mentions that she does her job so others can take action; “we record so others ask.” Later on, we hear that her parents have essentially not left their rural Ohio house since the conflict started as they’re “trying to stay out of it.” But the film asks if, by taking such a passive perspective in her photography, if she herself is also staying out of it, and is such a position really possible? And is it even relevant with the scale of violence being perpetuated?

For some, “Civil War” will be a film more interesting to discuss and dissect rather than to watch. That’s not discounting the incredible work put into the production and performances. Merely, it's an unfortunate byproduct of the film’s central idea. For some people it just won’t work as well as it will for others, creating an insurmountable dichotomy between their experiences. Make no mistake though, any film that can create such heated debates over its elements is anything but bad. 3.5/5

The People's Joker - Review: See How She Got These Emotional Scars

 

In the world of modern cinema, there’s something kind of magical about actually being able to describe something as “unlike anything you’ve seen before.” Not just in terms of visual characteristics, but in storytelling and plot, it seems as if we’ve been to every world, seen every creature, and experienced every kind of trope possible on the silver screen. But in comes the unauthorized, authentically mad, wonderfully indescribable “The People’s Joker” to smash all of that to the ground.

The film follows Joker the Harlequin, played by writer/director/editor Verd Drew, a trans-woman and aspiring comedian living in Gotham City who struggles with her attempts to break into the world of stand-up comedy. After failing to make it on the standup show UCB Live, she decides to start an underground alt-comedy group with her friend Penguin, played by Nathan Faustyn, and ends up dating one of the comedians, the Marxist-joke telling Mr. J, played by Kane Distler. Eventually, fed up with Batman’s ruling over Gotham and the way UCB treats its comedians, Joker decides to fight back against the system to take them both down, while going through a gender transition spurred by the movement in the process.

Drew’s sense of humor and style will certainly not be for everyone, but there’s a deep level of authenticity that simply cannot be faked. Drew and co-writer Bri LeRose (“Magic for Humans,” “Chad and JT Go Deep”) might be painting this tale with sickly greens and the brushes of 1000 different online contributors, but there’s a deep-rooted genuine nature to this tale of self and gender identity. Drew herself is an okay actor, and the performance she gives succeeds in that authenticity as it falters in more strictly “good” acting choices.

The rest of the film’s ensemble fares well, essentially matching Drew’s efforts, with a handful of minor background voices or roles feeling more like fan-made YouTube level clips. Distler manages to rise to Drew’s level, putting some real heft into his delivery without doing so well as to cover up the amateurish nature of the performance. Surprisingly, it’s Faustyn that manages to steal the show, delivering a legitimately funny and endearing interpretation of the Penguin’s persona. Also stealing the show is “Tim and Eric” regular David Liebe Hart as UCB Live alum Ra's al Ghul, who mentors Joker through the comedy world in a surprisingly sympathetic and endearing portrayal of the older mentor trope.

Visually, you’ve truly seen nothing like “The People’s Joker” and its do-it-yourself filmmaking aesthetic. Scenes go from live action on green screens to action figures posing to hand drawn animation to stop motion to rudimentary CGI in the blink of an eye. This sporadic nature lends itself well to the absurdist way this tale is told, with flashbacks literally censoring out any use of the Joker’s pre-transition deadname. Various scenes were even made by completely different people from across the country, all coming together to form a hodgepodge mishmash of insanity. It’s the kind of film where one cameo can get edited out and replaced with another with virtually zero effect due to the visual styles of the film. Hell, even Bob Odenkirk gets a spliced-in cameo after he heard about and loved the concept.

For those calling the film out on its subject matter or even its depictions of various DC characters, it's obviously done in an unauthorized way, but not without appreciation. This is clearly the kind of project that, for all its joking nature and clear criticisms for DC, Batman, Warner Bros., and the comics industry at large, there’s also a deep love for this world on display. From the recreations of iconic landmarks to specific moments in comic history to namedropping C and D tier characters, this seemingly anti-superhero-movie movie might just be one of the most passionate displays of love for the medium in a very long time.

It’s not without its faults though. As said before, the visual style and sense of humor are not for everyone, and it might simply be too visually busy for some to watch, even before taking the humor into consideration. It’s a very brash film, not interested in toning itself down in any way, requiring the viewer to meet it on its own terms. It also spirals a bit into bizarre self-headiness within its last ten minutes. It’s certainly a bold choice for an ending, and it does end on one single perfect moment, but it still feels weirdly more “experimental” than even the rest of the film. And Vera, we love ya’, but singing is not your strong suit.

“The People’s Joker” is just that; a superhero-set film made for the people by a lot of talented people. It’s a miracle that this film even exists, let alone continues to exist safe from the nuclear bombs of DC and Warner Bros. (Drew does credit her lawyers, even the ones who wish to remain anonymous, in the film’s credits). It is a sheer force of creative will and energy, a blast of colorful, anti-establishment comedy and superhero takedowns used to disguise a deeply personal story of identity that might be the only film in decades that could legitimately be described as unlike anything you’ve ever seen before. And that’s no joke. 4/5

Monkey Man - Review: A Brutal and Punishing Debut

 

Barreling into cinemas proudly and confidently thumping its chest, Dev Patel’s (“Slumdog Millionaire,” “The Green Knight”) directorial debut, which he also produced, stars in, and co-wrote alongside Paul Angunawela (“Keith Lemon: The Film”) and John Collee (“Hotel Mumbai,” “Happy Feet”), “Monkey Man” is far more than just an “Indian John Wick” knock-off. It’s brutal, bloody, and unforgiving in ways that series and other action films aren’t, crafting a tone and work entirely its own. 

Following an unnamed man going by Kid, played by Patel, the film showcases his journey working odd jobs in India whilst moonlighting as an unnamed boxing heel known as Monkey Man, while secretly planning revenge against the military and the man who killed his mother and burned down his village as a child. 

Patel leads an impressive ensemble cast that breathes life into all facets of the Indian caste system as represented here. Sharlto Copley (“District 9,” “Elysium”) plays Tiger, the announcer of Kid’s nightly matches, Pitobash (“Million Dollar Arm,” “Shor in the City”) as Kid’s comedic accomplice in his quest Alphonso, Ashwini Kalsekar (“Jodha Akbar,” “Merry Christmas (2024)”) as Queenie, the matriarchal leader of a luxury brothel, Makarand Deshpande (“Darna Zaroori Hai,” “Dandupalya”) as Baba, a religious leader masquerading as an innocent man who’s actually giving the genocidal orders to the likes of Rana, played by Sikander Kher (“Aarya,” “Dukaan”). 

The whole cast is fantastic, and Patel really dives headfirst into an exceptionally physical role. He quite literally throws himself at most walls, structures, and fights with the sort of vigor that you’d typically only expect from someone who’s been doing this kind of action stunt work for decades. There’s a fresh-faced energy to the performance and the physicality of it all. Like the great every-man performances of times gone by, Patel’s ability to let himself get beat to hell and back and still come back from it is extremely endearing and works to build audience engagement with his tale. 

Everything here feels exceptionally gnarly and nasty, even for films that are always this traditionally violent. If John Wick and similar action films almost seem like the hero is bleeding too little, “Monkey Man” fixes this problem wholeheartedly. It does mean that, even for its genre, it can feel particularly unforgiving and mean, which could be a turnoff to some viewers. It prevents the movie from having a fun “blockbuster” effect like other similar action films, which while not affecting the quality, does mean it has less of a “throw it on at any moment” feeling. 

The cinematography, by Sharone Meir (“Whiplash,” “Silent Night”), is intense and chaotic, just as much as the fights and violence itself. It's gnarly and gets right up in the faces and spaces of the characters doing the swinging, resulting in some truly visceral and adrenaline pumping camerawork. This doesn’t just make for a great display of how to shoot action like this uniquely, but also as a window into the fractured psyche and headspace of the film’s protagonist. 

Underneath all of that, Patel has also managed to effortlessly weave a layer of queer representation to the events of the film. There’s a group of hijra refugees that help him later in the film as well as a group of trans women warriors he fights alongside in the third act. It adds to the film’s themes of oppression and revolution while also further connecting it to the various Indian religious groups and individual communities, fleshing out the film further. These badass moments are enhanced even more thanks to a rocking score from composer Jed Kurzel (“The Babadook,” “Overlord”), blending rocking action instruments with classical Indian music stylings. 

After being plucked from Netflix from Universal and Jordan Peele for a broad theatrical release, Dev Patel’s directorial debut manages to be a bone crunching action flick with deep cultural ties and a rebellious spirit. It isn’t just in camera work or colors either, as the ideas of rebelling and fighting oppression are tied into the fabric of the film’s identity. “Monkey Man” might be punishing even by its genre’s standards, but it's still a thrilling and exceptional debut no matter what. 4/5