Wolfwalkers - Review

Despite never achieving the household name status as the likes of Pixar or Ghibli, Kilkenny-based animation studio Cartoon Saloon has continuously churned out delightful hand drawn fairy tales every few years, never afraid to touch either obscure high fantasy (“Song of the Sea,” “Secret of Kells”) or the harsh realities of life (“The Breadwinner”). Yet its with “Wolfwalkers” that the studio has not only created a bridge between these two types of films, but created their greatest work yet.

The story is that of a fairy tale, not unlike the kind that Disney would pull from in their earliest era. A young girl Robyn, voiced by Honor Kneafsey (“A Christmas Prince,” “Benidorm”), encounters a wolfwalker named Mebh, voiced by Eva Whittaker, in the woods shortly after she and her father, Goodfellowe, voiced by Sean Bean (“The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,” “Patriot Games”), move to an Irish town ruled by The Lord Protector, voiced by Simon McBurney (“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” “The Manchurian Candidate”).

The story may be that of a fairy tale, but like any good creators, writer/director Tomm Moore (“The Secret of Kells,” “Song of the Sea”) and writer/director Ross Stewart (“The Secret of Kells,” “ParaNorman”) and writer Will Collins (“My Brothers,” “Song of the Sea”) inject it with a fair amount of real-world parallels. When the Lord Protector speaks of taming the savage lands he rules over, you can’t quite tell if he means the wolves or the people he rules over. There are plenty of events and themes that touch on subjects like prejudice and the history of England ruling over Ireland and all are pulled off beautifully.

It’s the people behind these voices that help to pull it all off. Kneafsey is absolutely excellent as Robyn, delivering a performance that grows as she does throughout the film. Sean Bean, meanwhile, delivers what might be the strongest and emotionally complex role of his career. None are more impressive as Whittaker though, given that this is her first film credit. She balances her inner wildness from both being a wolfwalker and also a young girl with the trauma that she’d forced to endure as the story progresses.

Maria Doyle Kennedy (“Orphan Black,” “Byzantium”) is also great as the soft-spoken mother of Mebh, Moll, despite having a limited amount of speaking time compared to the other actors. The same goes for McBurney as the Lord Protector who manages to stand tall alongside the best animated villains thanks to a manipulative and stern vocal performance.

As with every previous Cartoon Saloon film, the way its animated is one of the highlights and reason enough to see the film. The two distinct visual styles mesh beautifully to accompany the story both visually and emotionally. From the blocky, Mc-Escher designs of the inside of the town, to the painterly, sketched out look of the forest and wolf world, it’s a film that is easy to connect with because the visuals do such an incredible job of selling the entire world.

Its not just pretty, as when things move toward the brutal and horrific, the painted strokes of this world still sell the look just as assuredly. It’s as close to a moving painting as one can get in an animated film (not counting “Loving Vincent”) and its all the better for it. Even moments where the rough sketches from animator’s shine through are deliberate choices to better communicate this world and the character’s emotions and it becomes a thrilling experience to watch.

The musical score from Bruno Coulais (“Coraline,” “The Secret of Kells”) is haunting and wonderous, invading your ears like a kind of hypnotic melody. It’s beautiful and devastating and it matches the songs from singer Kíla perfectly.

There is nary a thing wrong with “Wolfwalkers” on any level. There might be a few moments where a joke doesn’t fit tonally, but these are mere seconds within an entire work that stirs the soul and fills eyes with tears and wonder. It’s a masterpiece, plain and simple, and should be viewed by all audiences of any age. 5/5

Minari - Review

 

For an abstract concept that’s existed for decades, there are a lot of films about the American Dream. It has a lot of interpretations and ideas about what exactly it means, and you could go on for days discussing them all. Yet, you probably won’t find one as expertly crafted and wonderful as “Minari.”

Written and directed by Lee Isaac Chung (“Munyurangabo,” “Abigail Harm”) the film is a semi-autobiographical tale loosely based on Chung’s childhood. It follows the Yi family as they move to a farm in Arkansas the father, Jacob, has purchased. Jacob, played by Steven Yeun (“Sorry to Bother You,” “The Walking Dead”), is a headstrong patriarch, who clearly wants to provide for his family and also show them that he can be a success and provide an “American” life for them. Yeun performance is one of both love and anger. As much as frustration flows through him, you empathize with each and every moment. The same goes for his wife, Monica, played by Han Ye-ri (“Worst Woman,” “A Quiet Dream”). You equally empathize with the unfortunate situation she’s been placed in. She wants to stay and live with her husband, but she also wants to move their children to a better home away from the countryside and somewhere more stable.

Eventually Monica’s mother comes to live with them, Soon-ja, played by Youn Yuh-jung (“The Housemaid,” “The Bacchus Lady”). She’s yet another in a line of sassy Korean grandmothers that have popped up in recent years, and she’s just as charming as any of them. She provides most of the film’s comedic relief, and yet also maintains a strong maternal figure for the kids when the parents are working, keeping a tight balance between silliness and sternness.

This maternal instinct is also shown in Anne, the daughter, played by Noel Kate Cho in her film debut. She isn’t in the film much but has the exact level of comfort and frustration you’d expect from an older sibling. There’s also Will Patton (“Halloween (2018),” “Falling Skies”) as Paul, a farmhand who comes to work for and help Jacob, and while he might come off as a little annoying, he grows on the viewer as he grows on the Yis.

Despite a talented ensemble cast, the film belongs to newcomer 7-year-old Alan Kim. In his film debut, he makes a huge impression as David, the youngest member of the Yi family. His childlike attitude and whimsy make for some amusing moments where you roll your eyes and scold him for his actions, but he also exhibits a large amount of maturity given the events of the film. He’s an absolute delight, tossing out any and all stereotypes about child actors and delivering what might be one of the year’s best performances.

Its easy to feel apprehensive about Minari. From the trailer and studio, A24, its easy to imagine this is yet another independent film that crawls by with little plot, string music, and a slow pace. Yet, that’s quite the opposite and its thanks to Chung’s script and the overall atmosphere of the film.

The dialogue and family atmosphere feel extremely natural and its easy to see elements of every person’s family within the Yi’s. It because of this easy to see and understand family nature that the film never feels too slow or bogged down. It all comes back to this feeling of familial warmth that exists at the center of it all. Everyone clearly wants what’s best for each other and the family as a whole, even as it might get in the way of their own desires. This easy-to-understand central idea makes the film far more digestible for viewers, bucking the trend of indie films being more overly dramatic and slowly paced.

It truly does just exude a kind of warmth that’s hard to match. So often even the quietest or simplest of moments wrap you up like a thick comforter and let you just live in the moment with these characters. It turns the entire film into a genuine crowd-pleasing tearjerker.

“Minari” is an easy to recommend family drama based on the strength of its cast alone. Yet, it’s the relationship of the family, the American Dream at its center, and the warmth it exudes that takes it above being just an easy recommendation. This is a delightful and wonderful film that virtually anyone can watch, enjoy, and walk away with something learned. 5/5

Let Them All Talk - Review

 

Meryl Streep (“Sophie’s Choice,” “Big Little Lies”), a cruise ship, an Oscar winning director and actors, and a script from a literal professor of literature. What could possibly go wrong? Well, the thing is, nothing really is wrong with this new HBO Max original film “Let Them All Talk.” The end result just ends up being less than the sum of its parts.

Streep plays Pulitzer prize winning author Alice who invites her two oldest friends and her nephew on a cruise across the Atlantic. It seems as though this is a gesture of goodwill to her old pals and an effort to reconnect with them, but it quickly becomes apparent that more sinister motivations might be afoot.

At least, that’s how things seem at the beginning. Within the first 15 minutes there’s an elaborate set of scenes featuring all the various characters who will be going on the cruise discussing with others why they’re going; Alice’s nephew Tyler, her two friends Roberta and Susan, and her literary agent Karen. Each seem to have something boiling under the surface that makes them want to travel with her, and it seems to be the elements for a ripe and catty dramedy.

It is, at first. With the first half of the film, each puzzle piece and character motivation is slowly being revealed. There are family dramas, money issues, potential love interests, and professional rivalries. It seems that things might be building to a series of big dramatic climaxes. It feels like director Steven Soderbergh’s (“sex, lies, and videotape,” “Ocean’s Eleven”) heist films, where at first you see them planning everything before they finally execute it all.

Yet, those revelations and executions never come. Some plots are resolved, though in less than satisfying ways. As the films continues and it becomes more and more apparent that things aren’t going to end with a flourish and more so with a slump, it becomes a far less engaging piece of filmmaking.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the goal of the film was to just be a light and breezy affair where you just get to watch talented actors acting off of each other, but again, the first half is constructed almost like the first half of a mystery, but the payoffs simply don’t come. It’s as if Soderbergh changed his mind on what kind of film he was making halfway through editing it.

The script, or plot outline, by Deborah Eisenberg is entertaining for the most part. Soderbergh reportedly took just her outline and let a large majority of the dialogue be improvised. While this means it does feel very conversational and, in the moment, a large number of big events are referred to in hushed tones. It’s hard to tell if they’re meant to be overly ambiguous or if something is simply just not connecting as a viewer.

However, all is not lost. The film is gorgeous to look at, with Soderbergh himself serving as cinematographer. It’s almost like a love letter to the kind of small form films he used to make, with all natural lighting and a refined simplicity that makes everything a joy to look at.

The acting as well is superb. Even as the plot and some dialogue crumbles around them, these characters remain interesting thanks to the actors themselves. Streep is as excellent as she always is, delivering a wonderfully catty and undermining performance in Alice. Her nephew, played by Lucas Hedges (“Boy Erased,” “Lady Bird”), is also a great joy. It’s easy to root for him and watch him fall prey to his aunt’s traits and manipulative nature as she continues to rub off on him in the worst way. Alice’s literary agent is also very charming, played by Gemma Chan (“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” “Crazy Rich Asians”). Like the other characters, it’s a delight to watch her riff off of Hedges, and, unlike the occasional dud delivered by the others, she simply doesn’t have a bad line in her entire performance.

Candice Bergen (“Murphy Brown,” “Miss Congeniality”) and Dianne Wiest (“Parenthood,” “Hannah and Her Sisters”) as also in top form as Alice’s two friends Roberta and Susan. While Susan feels a bit like a placebo, sitting around and not really doing much, she’s still a joy to spend time with thanks to Wiest. Roberts seems as though she has the most meat on her story. Bergen’s performance is top notch, and her character’s plot is the most fully formed of the entire film.

It’s a shame, given the largely great improvisation, terrific performances, and stunning visual style, that “Let Them All Talk” just feels thin and undercooked. There simply is too much talking and not enough actual plot. It might be fun for a spell, and the first half is terrific, but as things continue to unfold, it quickly becomes apparent that this story is only going to end with a sputtering whimper instead of the explosion it seems to be leading to. 2.5/5

Mank - Review

Heed this warning now, casual moviegoers: this is not the same David Fincher who brought you the stylized violence of “Fight Club” or “Zodiac,” nor is this the slow but energetic direction of “The Social Network” or “The Game.” This is the kind of Fincher who brough us “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” but if it were clearly a love letter to the old style of cinema and his father.

“Mank” is the story of Herman Mankiewicz, a screenwriter and playwright most famous for writing “Citizen Kane.” It follows his life, flipping back and forth between Mank writing “Kane” in 1940 and his life in the decade prior. This is a densely packed and deliberately paced period piece chocked full of great performances and technical merits.

Gary Oldman (“Sid and Nancy,” “Darkest Hour”) plays Mank with a drunken suaveness that’s easily likeable. Yes, he’s a drunken reprobate who loves his booze and cigarettes, but even as he’s acclaimed as one of the best writers working, there’s not a shred of pompousness to him. He might spout out literary quotes, but there’s a genuine everyman quality to him.

He’s the kind of person who looks after the little guy and seems to care about everyone around him. Oldman truly embodies this aspect and brings it to the forefront. Even as he’s making demands or asks questions that cause things to unravel around him, he never raises his voice or loses that wide-eyed creative spirit.

While there is a revolving door of people and cast members throughout the film, they all are acted well enough, even if they don’t make a particular impact because of their performance. Mank’s wife Sara, played by Tuppence Middleton (“The Imitation Game,” “Downton Abbey (2019)”), is a beacon of joy and lightness in his life and on the screen, as is Mank’s secretary and moral confidant Rita Alexander, played by Lily Collins (“Emily in Paris,” “Okja”). Tom Burke (“Strike,” “Only God Forgives”) is absolutely uncanny as Orson Welles, and Charles Dance (“Game of Thrones,” “Gosford Park”) is just as delightfully slimy as possible as William Randolph Hearst, as is Arliss Howard (“Full Metal Jacket,” “To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar”) as Louis B. Mayer.

The only other actor who makes as much of an impact, performance wise, as Oldman does is Amanda Seyfriend (“Mean Girls,” “Mamma Mia!”) as Marion Davies. She nails the Brooklyn accent and sensibilities of this early Hollywood starlet. She exists as a sort of idealized version of the Hollywood actress, separate from the schmoozing and greed of the era like a perfectly polished angel in both her costuming and Seyfried’s performance.

Each inch of the production of “Mank” is immaculate. The black and white film crackles and pops like an old popcorn cooker, and the music is also appropriately timely, a surprise given the composers are Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (“The Social Network,” “Soul”). It’s has a fuzzy and old timey disposition to the entire affair that makes it feel dreamlike. Even the way objects movie towards the screen, and how closeups and driving sequences are shot returns to the sensibilities of a bygone era.

Cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt (“Mindhunter,” “Raised By Wolves”) has shot a film that would be gorgeous by itself, but the techniques of old Hollywood that he uses to further enhance the experience are delightful. The way shadows loom, wipe fades cruise across the screen, circle wipes take over everything in their path, even the pure whiteness of sunlight lends the entire experience an otherworldly feel. It’s modern only in its pure resolution, and a gem of old technique in every other aspect.

The script is also an absolute gem. Perfectly blending the speaking pattern of the era and the kind of Sorkin-esque dialogue of modern cinema, Jack Fincher () has delivered a script that crackles with nearly every line. It demands your attention as names, quotes, and events are spouted off regularly. It’s not a script for casual filmgoers; the more you know about cinema history, the better it becomes.

David Fincher has long been a filmmaker’s filmmaker, taking subjects most would think unfilmable and turning them into gems. Here he’s created possibly his best work from a technical standpoint, but the spirit of the piece might be too dense for some. “Will “Mank” be enjoyable to you” can likely be traced back to one simple question: how much do you love the movies? It’s an undeniably gorgeous and spirited dream of a film, that’s for sure. For film lovers, it’s a must see. For casual viewers who only know Fincher from “Fight Club” and “the Facebook movie”, your mileage may vary. 4.5/5

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

On the Rocks - Review

 

There’s something to be said for a light, bubbly film filled with nothing but amusing and well performed characters delivering amusing dialogue. That doesn’t mean these films should be disregarded or that they can’t make statements, but they’re more often than not just a light and fluffy affair.

Sofia Coppola’s (“Lost in Translation,” “The Beguiled”) latest film and her latest collaboration with Bill Murray (“Ghostbusters,” “Lost in Translation”), “On the Rocks” is an interesting blend of both light and dark elements. It would be extremely easy to watch the film as an amusing 90 minutes and think nothing more of it, but those who choose to look under the surface of these characters more, as well as those who know about Coppola’s father, will likely find far more to chew over.

Murray plays Felix, an aging playboy and art dealer who spends his days traveling across the globe on a whim and trying to spend time with his daughter, Laura, played by Rashida Jones (“Parks and Recreation,” “The Social Network”), who dreams of becoming a writer. Laura feels like her husband Dean, a successful social media entrepreneur played by Marlon Wayans (“Scary Movie,” “Requiem for a Dream”), and Felix finds his way back into her life by grabbing hold of those anxieties that Dean is cheating on Laura and offering to help her find out the truth.

A summary like that might make the film sound like a dark globetrotting adventure, but like most of Coppola’s other films, its mainly focused on one city, New York. The streets and skylines make for a perfect backdrop to this mad-dash caper, and Philippe Le Sourd (“The Grandmaster,” “The Beguiled”), who previously worked with Coppola on “The Beguiled” takes full advantage of the neon lights and dark skies of the Big Apple at night.

Murray is at the top of his game here, unquestionably. After his career skyrocketed with the likes of “Ghostbusters” and “Stripes”, he was reborn in the early 2000’s as a darling of the indie film scene with movies like “Broken Flowers,” “Limits of Control,” “Get Low,” Coppola’s previous work “Lost in Translation,” and virtually anything by Wes Anderson. This is important to note because here more than ever before Murray seems to pull from both his playbooks. There’s the chauvinistic, charismatic, sometimes even crude chops from his 80’s-90’s comedy catalog, as well as a somber undercurrent that’s much more in line with his recent projects. It is a truly interesting performance to watch, as he staggers between being an eye-rolling delight and absolutely infuriating.

Jones delivers a performance that, while more straight forward, is nonetheless as excellent as Murray’s. The pair have chemistry that is hard to fake, really selling not only the father and daughter dynamic, but the history between the two of them. There are events that we the audience are not made privy to that have clearly influenced the way they act with each other, and that kind of recognizable history, without it ever being spelled out, gives their relationship layers. It also helps to deepen Jones’s performance as we see her mull over and deal with the events of the film, something we don’t see Murray do.

Coppola’s direction is subdued in just the right way. It isn’t flashy or showy, and the film overall avoids some of the more experiential moments of her earlier works. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is up for debate, but it delivers a more straight forward film.

This is a double-edged sword. While its nice to have a more commercially viable and lighthearted product, “On the Rocks” lacks the introspective nature or bite of Coppola’s other works. It’s not as wise or ethereal as “Lost in Translation”, not as anarchistic as “The Bling Ring” or “Marie Antoinette.” It’s not as eerie as “The Beguiled” or as empty as “Somewhere.” While there are layers, even those aren’t as detailed as one might expect from Coppola. It results in a film that, while her fingerprints as unmistakably present, could have been directed by anyone else and likely achieved similar results.

While that might sound like a damning critique, rest assured that its merely a long drawn out way of explaining a mere quibble. This is one of the funniest films of the year because of those winning performances and the way it interweaves the humor with its own dire straits. Humor is virtually weaponized here, as Coppola has Murray’s character delivering the same kinds of lines throughout, going from funny to tragic based on his own actions and the arcs he and Laura each have.

“On the Rocks” is a bizarrely complex film despite lacking any major bombshell revelations. Its superbly acted with Coppola’s deft hand for dialogue and charm. Murray delivers a career best performance, as does Jones, resulting in a warm and light film that goes down smooth and fills your head with bubbles. 4/5

Over the Moon - Review

 

With an animation career spanning over 40 decades of work and having worked on some of the greatest animated films of the last half a century, Disney Legend Glen Keane (The Little Mermaid, Dear Basketball) is an obvious choice to direct his own animated features. Mixing his experience with that of screenwriter Audrey Wells (Guinevere, The Hate U Give), Alice Wu (Saving Face, The Half of It), and Jennifer Yee McDevitt (Pittsburgh Passion) to create an animated musical based on the Chinese legend of Chang'e seems like an immediate and surefire success.

There are definitely elements here to praise. The cast does a fabulous job with their material, newcomer Cathy Ang does a great job capturing the science loving teenage angst of Fei Fei, and her reluctant brother Chin is also voiced well by newcomer Robert G. Chiu. The standouts amongst a fairly stacked cast though is Broadway star Phillipa Soo (Hamilton, The One and Only Ivan) who perfectly pulls off the complicated diva persona of Chang’e. From there, the rest of the cast is either used for 15 minutes, like supporting members John Cho (Searching, Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Margaret Cho (Bright, Rick & Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple In All The World), Sandra Oh (Grey’s Anatomy, Killing Eve), and Kimiko Glenn (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Orange is the New Black), or worse.

In a genuinely confusing decision, Ken Jeong (Community, Crazy Rich Asians) plays Gobi, a pangolin and former servant of Chang’e. While his performance isn’t bad, it’s the character itself that becomes extremely grating. Gobi is simply the worst of all modern-day Hollywood animation rolled into one. He’s hyperactive, annoying, and then turns on a dime to deliver heartbreaking exposition, as if audience members are being punished for finding him annoying.

Visually, “Moon” explodes with color and visual flair at almost every moment. The team at Sony Pictures Imageworks has absolutely outdone themselves, and while clearly working with a smaller budget than a typical Pixar or DreamWorks film, there’s still a distinct visual style here. Each character seems sculpted out of clay, as if they exist as statues. Lunaria, the Moon city, is an absolute showstopper. With Day-Glo environments that pop and shine like gummies exploding onto the screen, it’s a colorful and memorable world for these characters to explore.

The musical elements aren’t executed as flawlessly as the visuals, but for the most part they’re admirable. Songwriters Christopher Curtis (Chaplin: The Musical, The Man Upon the Wall), Majorite Duffield, and Helen Park (KPOP: The Musical) craft some lovely melodies, and most of the songs are good. Ultraluminary, Chang’e’s introductory song infuses popstar and diva sensibilities into an introductory tune. Mooncakes is also a highlight, seeming as if its was plucked right out of the Disney renaissance.

From there, the songs aren’t bad, just unmemorable. Hey Boy is a rap battle set to a ping pong game that fails to make a lasting impression, and Wonderful is an out of nowhere tear jerker ballad. Again, these songs aren’t bad, they just fail to stick in viewers brains for longer than they’re onscreen.

That isn’t the only thing that fails to make an impression though, as the overall plot of Moon could’ve used some serious work. What exists here is an interesting tale of loss and emotion, with a STEM focused through line and a great sense of sci-fi imagination. However, the way its been presented in the film itself is in quite possibly the most generic and safe way possible.

There’s the “I want” song, the emotional 3^rd act song, the climactic chase with the fake out death, the 1^st act Chekhov’s gun, and the separation of siblings only to be reunited with a greater respect for each other. There are even subplots that are introduced and then forgotten about virtually instantly, like Chin being trapped and a bunny love story. It’s not a flawed story at its core, its just being presented in the most generic way possible, and as these events take place over top of gorgeous environments that look like you could eat them, its easy to think of a more creative and engaging way of telling this story.

Over the Moon is not the worst animated film of the year, not by a long shot. It’s animation and vocal performances are wonderful, most of its songs are great, and its always good to see a more diverse tale being told from such a big studio. However, it might just be the most disappointing animated film of the year, as its easy to see how much better it could’ve been. It’s a film that’s less than the sum of its parts but can still be a colorful and amusing distraction for a weekend stream. At least it isn’t overtly annoying. 3/5