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

The Boys in the Band (2020) - Review

 

In the realm of classic gay and LGBTQA+ entertainment, there is nothing quite like Mart Crowley’s “The Boys in the Band.” Premiering off-Broadway in 1968, the play was a sensation and was adapted into a film by William Friedkin two years after its premiere. Now, Netflix has brought us a second film version for the plays 50^th anniversary, retaining the same director, writer, and entire cast as the 50^th anniversary Broadway revival.

This means that everyone in the cast is already intimately familiar with their characters and their performances show it. Jim Parsons (“The Big Bang Theory,” “The Normal Heart”) leads the cast as Michael, a middle aged, smartly groomed and fiercely opinionated gay man. His catty remarks and acidic dialogue are delivered wonderfully by Parsons who makes a strong impression from the very first moment.

Matt Bomer (“Magic Mike,” “The Nice Guys”) might not be second billed, but he’s the one who’s in the film the most besides Parsons. His character, Donald, is the closest thing the work has to an audience surrogate, yet Bomer still imbues him with an easy-going charm without sanding down the most interesting elements. Brian Hutchison (“Blue Bloods,” “Jessica Jones”) meanwhile doesn’t get the most screen time but certainly gets some of the meatiest material to deal with as Alan. The sole straight person as this exceedingly homosexual birthday party, his perspective is warped, and it’s just as shocking to see the events spurred by him play out now as they were in 1968 (perhaps more so).

Andrew Rannells (“Big Mouth,” “Girls”) and Tuc Watkins (“Desperate Housewives,” “The Mummy (1999)”), meanwhile, play Larry and Hank, a couple who are constantly fighting with each other over who they are and what they want and the chemistry and love between the pair is electric. Michael Benjamin Washington (“Ratched,” “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt”) and Robin de Jesús (“Camp,” “Gun Hill Road”) are Bernard and Emory, another couple attending the party and while they’re just as good as the rest of the actors, their plight is just the least interesting of the bunch. There’s also the character simply known as Cowboy, played by Charlie Carver (“Desperate Housewive,” “Ratched”), an attractive young man presented to the birthday boy, Harold, as a gift. He’s amusing enough but his is merely a one note character, misunderstanding fancy words and being attractive and dumb.

Speaking of Harold, he might only arrive about 45 minutes into the film, but when Zachary Quinto (“Star Trek (2009),” “NOS4A2”) struts on screen, he positively crackles with excitement. His is a role that is any actors dream, a persona so big it drapes over them like a duvet. He chews every line, delivers every word with a forked tongue, and yet imparts the most genuine reflection and wisdom of any character. It’s a performance for the ages plain and simple.

Given its origins as a stage play, most of “Boys in the Band” takes place in one location, and as smartly dressed and well shot as it is, by the film’s end it does start to feel like exactly what it is; a film all shot in one location. The warm amber lighting and 70’s furniture look immaculate, as does the nighttime terrace and corkscrew staircase. Its shot, by legendary cinematographer Bill Pope (“The Matrix,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”) in a plain way that serves to accentuate the era its placed in.

The costumes, the set, the dialogue, the acting, its clear from the first few moments that this cast and crew know this material by heart. Performances and talent aren’t an issue here. And yet, there’s something lacking, not just in this adaptation, but in the source material itself.

Its not that the material lacks bite in our modern age, it definitely doesn’t. “Band” still excites and enthralls today just as well as it did in the 70’s. The problem is that those excitements don’t really come until about halfway through the film. Prior to that, it’s a lot of queer saying things, but signifying nothing. There are amazing moments, like when Hutchinson’s Alan first explodes, but it’s a far cry from the direction things go in the later half. One can argue that this is how it should work, a film should be more interesting as it goes, as one’s investment in the characters grows.

Yet, for some reason the first hour-ish of this 2020 “Boys in the Band” just feels like its nothing but quippy dialogue. It feels like watching a bunch of queens snap at each other while you’re waiting to get to the good stuff. It isn’t bad, it’s just passable.

Don’t misunderstand, director Joe Mantello’s (“Love! Valour! Compassion!,” “The Normal Heart”) “Boys in the Band” is still a great experience, but its not as good as the 1970 original. Those who are unfamiliar with the play in general will find this a pleasant, possibly even great, place to start, filled with terrific performances and shot gorgeously. It’s not quite as great as it could be, but its still a delightfully gay time. 3.5/5

Kajillionaire - Review

 

Miranda July’s (“Me and You and Everyone We Know,” “The Future”) films have never been what one would call “mass appeal” pieces. That’s not speaking to their quality, simply the fact that their bizarre and quirky nature isn’t something most audiences would gravitate to. However, her latest film “Kajillionaire” manages to bridge the gap, and is not only her most accessible piece yet, but a strong contender for her best.

Old Dolio, played by Evan Rachel Wood (“Westworld,” “Thirteen”), is the daughter of two con-artists; Robert, played by Richard Jenkins (“Six Feet Under,” “The Vistor”), and Theresa, played by Debra Winger (“The Ranch,” “Urban Cowboy”). This family of oddballs is immediately off putting and yet also extremely charming. They try to scrimp and save to pay their rent, while pulling off small cons like pickpocketing, rigging lost and found items, and stealing packages from PO boxes.

There’s an odd veneer of calmness to them despite their dire money situation. They live next to a cleaning company where bubbles constantly spill out of a crack in their wall, they live in an old cubicle office, and Dolio spends nights listening to hold music on her flip phone. It’s as if they live in their own world, completely cut off from the rest of society.

During one of the many earthquake tremors that rupture through California, Robert simply says “if you’re lucky, you’ll get crushed and then you’ll just die right then and there.” The anxiety of money and the vapidness of modern society is rampant throughout the film, and yet July takes an interesting approach to telling this story by not making it society’s fault.

This family could easily crawl out of their pit of debt if they managed to focus, instead of looking for cheap and quick tricks to make a buck. They’re clearly intelligent enough; they constantly keep a schedule to clean the bubble leak and have photographic memory of the bus schedules and theirs even reference to the fact that prior to the unknown event that left them destitute, Robert and Theresa were real estate agents and Robert even had a job with the military.

What turned them into their warped, paranoid selves is never mentioned, but that’s likely because it never feels like their story. While Jenkins and Winger play them with deft hands, never letting their absurdity or crackpot nature out play the dramatic moments, the film belongs to Dolio, both in plot and thanks to Wood’s performance.

This isn’t a comedic tale about wacky con-artists who shoot for the dirt, this is a story about breaking out of the binds of one’s upbringing. When the film shifts to focus almost exclusively on Dolio, it’s a turning point from absurdist humor to an introspective look at this character who becomes more fascinating with each passing moment.

Later in the film, there are numerous moments that some might call on the nose, a parenting class and a paid gig for someone to act like a mother, but for people s far removed from the typical family structure, this kind of shock to the system bluntness is clearly what’s needed. In the latter half of the film, when she’s asked why her parents are her parents, Dolio replies quickly with “We split everything three ways, we have since I was little” and its in that bluntness that the true tragedy at the center of this comedy is exposed.

Evan Rachel Wood’s performance, as well as her chemistry with also excellent mid-film addition Gina Rodriguez (“Jane the Virgin,” “Annihilation”), absolutely sells this character. It’s a showpiece for Wood’s ability to truly inhabit characters who’s lives have been less than straightforward with a gentle ease. Dolio’s journey feels a lot like watching a deer being born, she’s struggling to stand and yet so clearly wants to run, and the latter half of the film is utterly enrapturing because of it.

July’s film is shot with a clearly small budget, but its usage of ordinary locations like post offices, run down bars, and average middle-class homes lends it all a very fake sheen. It’s obviously on purpose, but it is a visual treat to watch so many of these moments play out as absurdly as they do in such normal locations.

With its electronic music and Wood’s performance, as well as the green and pink color scheme throughout, there’s a lot that can be written about the film as queer analog. The themes of breaking away from one’s parents and the way July presents it all are heartbreakingly similar to the tales of many kids who’re forced to hide of change themselves due to fears of parental abandonment. It’s a surprisingly meaty film, and in less thoughtful or skilled hands, it would’ve easily been turned into some sort of screwball comedy along the lines of 2016’s abysmal “Masterminds.”

But in the hands of a deft indie auteur like July, “Kajillionaire” is a brilliantly bizarre comedy that nears the title of masterpiece. The performances are perfection, with Evan Rachel Wood easily making the shortlist for the best performance of the year. It’s a sublime and surreal delight that might not be for everyone, but that everyone should try. 5/5

MAJOR EMOTION PICTURES Episode 4: The LEGO Movie

This is Major Emotion Pictures, a discussion show where I sit down with my fellow film loving friends and discuss movies that mean a lot to them, for better or worse. In episode 4, we'll be discussing The LEGO Movie, the 2014 animated action comedy with my guest, Aaron Clark Burstein.

Unpregnant - Review

 

As bizarre as it may seem, a comedy about abortion isn’t that unique of an idea. “Juno” and “Knocked Up” made the unplanned pregnancy funny over a decade ago and since then, numerous other films have centered around the idea; “Obvious Child,” “Saint Frances,” “Grandma,” “Palindromes,” “Polyester,” “Citizen Ruth,” and films like “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” “Dirty Dancing,” and  “Alfie” have abortion come up within their plots.

In 2020 though, its extremely easy to see “Unpregnant” receive a whole heaping of comparisons to “Never Rarely Sometimes Always.” The plots are almost exactly the same, save for some differing locations and a clearly different tone. But, instead of comparing “Unpregnant” to that serious dramatic affair, its more aptly compared to 2018’s “Booksmart” in its tone, comedy, and winning cast.

The two leads, Haley Lu Richardson (“Support the Girls,” “Edge of Seventeen”) and Barbie Ferreira (“Euphoria”) have a perfect chemistry that flourishes as the plot requires. Their friendship never feels fake or forced, and the two play wonderfully off each other. While they are the two main roles, the supporting cast that pops up throughout their journey are virtually all scene-stealers, even if those scenes only last for a few minutes.

Breckin Meyer (“Clueless,” “Robot Chicken”) is an absolute scene-stealer as Mark, an overly devoted and antagonistic Christian father, Sugar Lyn Beard (“For a Good Time, Call…,” “Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates”) is twitchingly creepy as his wife, Australian pop star Betty Who appears for mere moments as a wonderfully charismatic stock car driver, and Denny Love (“Looking for Alaska,” “Empire”) as a momentary kind face who helps the girls escape from the cops.

The two supporting characters who get the most screen time are Alex MacNicoll (“13 Reasons Why,” “Transparent”) as Kevin, the clueless but well-meaning boyfriend of Richardson’s character and Giancarlo Esposito (“Breaking Bad,” “The Boys”) as Bob, a limo driver. MacNicoll rides the line between well intentioned and complete idiot perfectly, until he implodes in the third act. It’s a testament to Esposito’s talent that, despite not saying much, he leaves his bizarre mark on the film and transforms into one of its most memorable characters.

If there’s anything that will draw debate as more people see the film, it’s the use of humor within the subject material. Writer/Director and Funny or Die alumni Rachel Lee Goldenberg (“A Deadly Adoption,” “Valley Girl”) and the rest of her writers Ted Caplan (“Love Sonia”), Jenni Hendriks (“How I Met Your Mother”), Jennifer Kaytin Robinson (“Someone Great”), and Bill Parker (“Billy on the Street”), adapting from Caplan and Hendricks novel, make the smart decision of forgoing any and all jokes about abortion within the film.

Despite the premise, there’s never any “dead baby” jokes or things of that nature. There is an extended and elaborate sequence that makes fun of the far extreme pro-life activists in a way that virtually borders on parody. It’s a highlight of the film thanks to its ridiculous and goofy nature, but often times the humor gives way to the more emotional conversations the film wants to have.

An initially humorous moment turns somber as Richardson screams her frustrations at the governmental system and the men behind it who’ve forced her to travel 900 miles for an abortion. Her previously mentioned boyfriend turns from a comedic idiot to a sinister force as he reveals his true colors as the film progresses. It’s a great example of using the disarming aspects of comedy to peel back and reveal some real-world frustrations.

Unfortunately, it isn’t all great. The film’s biggest flaw is, for as entertaining as its sideshow characters are, it’s a pretty routine road trip comedy, complete with the same emotional beats between the two main friends seen numerous times before. It does lead to a feeling of sameness that sets in by about halfway through, but at least it’s an entertaining sameness regardless.

“Unpregnant” may be cliched by road trip comedy standards, but its central premise, cast of characters, two leads, and use of its humor make it a surprise delight of a film. It clearly isn’t the most serious take on its topic, but there’s still a surprising amount going on underneath the candy-colored and pop music sheen. 4/5