ATOMIC BLONDE

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+

Let's cut to the chase and talk about the sex in Atomic Blonde. Do I have your attention? I hope so! Because this movie has one sex scene, which star and co-producer Charlize Theron fervently supported as soon as screenwriter Kurt Johnstad suggested it, and it features no men. It's between Theron and supporting costar Sofia Boutella; it starts as a one-night stand; it's devoid of the usual clichés of onscreen lesbian sex; it's literally the only thing even remotely approaching a romantic subplot in the movie. What's more, in years past or in lesser hands, this would be a scene played to titillate straight men, with a character still intended to prefer men. Here, none of that is the case, and the relationship is as incidental -- yet integral to the plot -- as any fling that might be had by James Bond.

All of this significant, and further establishes Charlize Theron, in the wake of her amazing work in Mad Max Fury Road, as a paragon of kick-ass women in modern action movies. You know what she does to most of the men in this movie? She beats the shit out of them!

And she gets her ass kicked too, mind you -- which, as it happens, is also part of what elevates the film. Too long have we seen women who kick ass in movies suffer no visible bruises. David Leitch, here directing his first feature film after a long career as a stunt coordinator and fight designer, goes out of his way to make sure we see the physical consequences of this woman's fighting. There's a fair amount of naked Theron in this movie; very little of it is sexy. Most of it is badass.

Atomic Blonde is to be commended for respecting the intelligence of its audience by refusing to beat it over the head with action sequences as soon as the first scene, and instead takes some time to get the story underway. The story could have still used some improvement, or at least some clarity; I spent a fair amount of time finding it a challenge to keep up, due to a fairly convoluted and occasionally incomprehensible plot.

Someone has a list of double agents, in 1989 Berlin -- the fall of the Berlin Wall being a fascinating backdrop to this story -- and Lorraine Broughton (Theron), among others, are after it. That's all you really need to know, really. Another agent comes to her aid -- or does he? -- and that is James McAvoy, playing a bit of a suspicious blowhard who, thankfully, it never even seems to occur to Lorraine to fall for. The photographer she's far more compelled by (Sofia Boutella) is actually connected to them both. Lorraine is warned to "trust no one," and admittedly that is a bit of an overused concept, but this movie takes it to some refreshing places.

The action sequences are found deeper into the story than usual, and they are so worth the wait, I would argue they are alone what make Atomic Blonde worth seeing. This is a movie that takes a far more realistic approach than the typical action hero with movie-superhuman strengths (which even applies to Bond anymore), and as these people are beating each other to a pulp, you begin to cringe at the pain they must be feeling. Through it all, the fight choreography is truly impressive.

And it occasionally features subtle, artistic touches. Look closely at one of the final fight sequences, in which a gun victim's blood splatters perfectly onto the giant red lips of a woman's portrait on the wall.

This being 1989, the soundtrack is a stellar collection of eighties Brit pop, although I have mixed feelings about the vast majority of the songs being from the early eighties rather than at the end of the decade when the film was actually set. Still, the music, the set design, particularly the costuming, how it's all shot with neon lines, and the action set pieces -- it all comes together to supersede the minor flaws of the script and make for a movie that gets more thrilling as it goes along.

Charlize Theron kicks ass with style.

Overall: B+

LADY MACBETH

Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+

Lady Macbeth has something going for it that few films manage these days: an element of surprise. And I don't mean jump-scares -- although the story goes into a direction where you might start to expect them. This movie ended with me thinking that, in a way, it is a horror film.

It begins, though, much like any 19th-century period drama. Katherine (a stellar Florence Pugh) is married off like property, to a man who, for some reason, will not have sex with her. Katherine lives with both her husband and her father-in-law, the latter being increasingly frustrated with her not performing her "wifely duties." They guy hates his father arguably more than Katherine does. Things get odd pretty early on: Katherine's husband clearly finds her attractive, if he asks her to strip and stand facing against the wall while he sits in a chair in their bedroom and jerks off. But, why? Is he refusing to impregnate his wife just to spite his father? I never could quite figure this out.

Both the husband and father-in-law leave the estate for an extended period of time, leaving Katherine to get a taste of independence. She falls in love with Sebastian (Cosmo Jarvis), a worker on the estate who is much closer to her own age. This ignites a passion no one had any idea she had. From here on, this woman goes to some stunning lengths in her quest to keep Sebastian in her life, and in her bed.

Neither of these people are particularly worth rooting for, mind you. It seems in the beginning like Katherine is to be the hero of this story, but that's not quite how it is. Neither is it the case with Sebastian, who is introduced under rather shady circumstances: he and his colleagues have snatched the maid, Anna (Naomi Ackie), stripped her, and have her suspended from a stable ceiling inside a sheet. Katherine walks in on this, sees Sebastian, and it's like psycho-love at first sight.

Anna is arguably the only character worthy of sympathy. Things don't exactly go well for her at any point, though the same could be said of any of these characters. Lady Macbeth takes some truly dark turns, one after another, going to surprising depths.

It's truly compelling nonetheless. Even when little is going on, you can't take your eyes off this movie, or in particular off of Florence Pugh, who is a formidable talent. I want to see her in more things.

Director William Oldroyd refuses to engage in hand-holding, with slightly mixed results. Events occur that the characters appear to understand, but all the details of which are not revealed to the audience much later. I was slightly confused a few times. But the lead performance is so great, and the scenery so lush, this is easy to forgive.

And if nothing else, I have to respect a movie that successfully redefines its own terms as it goes along, and still manages to succeed on those terms. Lady Macbeth, both the woman and this movie, is genuinely disturbing. Even anyone who feels like she's on their side should watch their back.

You do not want to fuck with this bitch.

Overall: B+

[Archive of older B-grade movies on LiveJournal]

VALERIAN AND THE CITY OF A THOUSAND PLANETS

Directing: C
Acting: C-
Writing: C
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-
Special Effects: B+

Anyone who expects Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets to be a match to the cult favorite The Fifth Element will be sorely disappointed. Luc Besson, who directed both films twenty years apart, clearly intended for Valerian to be basically The Sixth Element in spirit. But, we should have learned our lesson from his last piece of garbage, 2014's Lucy, which was as brainless as it thought it was compelling.

There's a similar problem with Valerian, which is as dull as it thinks it's clever. It's also way too long -- 137 minutes -- for a movie packed with lame attempts at humor that falls flat, and ineptly cast actors with zero chemistry or screen presence. And these flaws are consistent: the dialogue is not once even remotely funny, much as it tries; the actors are not in the least bit charming, their clear and confident conviction otherwise notwithstanding.

Where did Besson find these actors, anyway? The budget for this film was reportedly $117.2 million, but clearly none of that was spent on the cast -- although Clive Owen, Ethan Hawke, and Rihanna all show up in supporting parts. Only Ethan Hawke seems to be having any fun, but none of that extends to the audience. In 31-year-old Dane DeHaan as "Major Valerian" and 24-year-old Cara Delevingne as "Sergeant Laureline," Besson seems to have found a low-rent version of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and a low-rent version of Emma Stone, respectively. To say they lack personality would be an insult to mannequins.

Strangely, even with several major players in bit parts -- Rutger Hauer, Herbie Hancock, even John Goodman as the voice of one of the CGI aliens -- Valerian still comes across overall as a low-rent Fifth Element. That earlier film was hardly a masterpiece, but it stood apart, succeeded on its own terms, and featured charismatic actors that elevated otherwise trite material. Valerian has no such saving graces.

Unless you want to count the special effects, maybe? A whole lot of this movie is indeed a feast for the eyes, arguably more so than any film Luc Besson has ever made. You could even argue he overdoes it, stuffing the frame with effect-laden set pieces in evident overcompensation for countless shortcomings. The thing is, nothing really makes up for a script that lands with a thud.

This isn't even "so bad it's good." It's just tedious, overlong, forgettable. Does the story even matter? Some critics have lauded the opening sequences, in which we see the evolution of the International Space Station over centuries into the future, until the international astronauts meeting each other become intergalactic, an optimistic view of our progression into an increasingly egalitarian future that moves into the extra-terrestrial. I found it to be a tad pretentious. Star Trek already examined such themes, did it fifty years ago, and did it better.

It's this space station, by the way, that becomes the "City of a Thousand Planets" of the subtitle, a place where representative populations come together to pool all the knowledge in the known universe. It's also where most of the story's action takes place, although it never becomes clear exactly why the endangered species of humanoids on which the plot hinges has to be gathered there.

A group of them kidnap a military commander from the Human Federation (Owen) while Valerian and Laureline have been sent to serve as bodyguards during some kind of negotiation, the details of which I can't remember, and which don't matter. What this movie wants you to know is that Valerian wants Laureline -- who is also his professional partner -- to marry him. It also wants you to care, to be invested in whether Laureline will ever accept his proposal, in the midst of all this fantastical action, including a fairly engaging set piece involving the movement into another dimension. This jumping between dimensions is what largely sets the story in motion, after which audience capacity for emotional investment drops dramatically.

You can guess whether the two leads wind up together in the end. The suspense is killing no one.

Valerian might have worked better with a different cast. It would certainly have worked better with a different script. As it is, we get forgettable dialogue phoned in by generic performers who disappear in derivative if well-rendered CGI scenery.

Dane DeHaan tries in vain to figure out how this movie will appeal to anyone.

Overall: C+

[Archive of older C-grade movies on LiveJournal]

DUNKIRK

Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: C+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A-

Dunkirk is fine.

Judging by the critical reception, though, you'd expect it to be extraordinary. By far the best-reviewed wide-release movie of the year so far, it has a score of 92% at Rotten Tomatoes, and an even higher score (which is very unusual) of 94 at MetaCritic. It seems like everyone and their mother likes this movie, and the few outliers are expected to be mere contrarians.

I'm not quite a contrarian: there is much to like about this movie. I'm just not going to tell you it's great. I'm not even going to tell you there's any pressing need for you to pay for a ticket to see it in the theatre. Dunkirk is not offered in 3D -- thankfully -- but it is available at IMAX theatres, which comes with its own price premiums, and I can tell you there is no need to waste money on that.

If by chance you don't know, Dunkirk is the name of the beach where over 300,000 Allied soldiers were evacuated from the north of France in 1940. This was a year and a half before the U.S. could be bothered to get involved in World War II thanks to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. The stories yet to be told about the second World War remain vast, but writer-director Christopher Nolan takes a comparatively micro view of this single military operation.

Much has been made of how much tension there is in Dunkirk, but the thing is, that's nearly all its got. Its greatest asset, which is mostly what creates the tension, is in its editing. In true Nolan style, a while into the film, you realize you're seeing different plot puzzle pieces fit together. The story's focus is four-pronged: three different boats or ships, and a couple of fighter planes, and how they all eventually intersect. There is indeed something undeniably satisfying about how all of these things eventually fit together.

Being rated PG-13, though, there's a certain lack of gritty realism. This, combined with a months-long marketing campaign positioning Dunkirk in a slightly misleading way as a Summer Event Movie, made me expect something a little more action-oriented, with Nolan's involvement creating an added expectation of cinematic artfulness. There are elements of both, but Nolan never quite goes the distance on either front.

There's plenty of pointed chaos, to be sure. But there's something essential missing from Dunkirk, and it is character development. It has almost none. This is more of a portrait of this evacuation, focusing on just a few people, but the camera simply follows them around through harrowing situations more than it picks up on anything in the way of individual conflicts. There's a certain emotional heft a movie like this should have, and Dunkirk lacks it.

It's certainly gripping, though. Although it barely falls short of qualifying as an action movie, there's plenty of action in it. The cast includes a couple of Nolan regulars: Tom Hardy as one of the fighter pilots; Cillian Murphy as a shell shocked soldier rescued from a capsized boat. It also features Kenneth Branagh and James D'Arcy as officers who do little more than walk around staring at everything happening on the beach. And perhaps most famously, Harry Styles is featured among the group of young soldiers just desperately trying to find their way onto one of the boats.

None of them talk much. The actor who gets the most screen time, Mark Rylance as the civilian boat captain taking his teenage son and young friend out to take part in the evacuation, also gets the most lines, and even that's not a whole lot. For the most part, it's boats and planes, bombs and explosions, capsizing and nose diving, all set to a score that clearly evokes a ticking clock.

There's a strange dichotomy to Dunkirk. It's impossible to be bored watching this movie, but it's also impossible to think of it as a truly accurate portrayal of what went on in the real-life event. It's still very much a Hollywood movie, clever in subtle ways but pointedly clever nonetheless. Unlike, say, the truly graphic extended opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan, it has less to say about the horrors of war than about how a director with a certain amount of power can turn war into ultimately inconsequential art. Because realistically, years from now, while people will still be talking about the best war movies ever made, no one will still be talking about Dunkirk.

Overall: B

A GHOST STORY

Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B+
Cinematography: A-
Editing: B-
 

To give you a sense of what sitting through A Ghost Story is like, you might want to be warned that, a little over 20 minutes into the film, you're going to watch a grieving widow (Rooney Mara), still reeling from the death of her beloved (Casey Affleck), eat an entire pie. Or at least, most of a pie. Her realtor has dropped it off, as people attempting to comfort the bereaved are wont to do. But this scene is done in only two takes, both of them very long. I couldn't tell you how many minutes, except that it is by far the longest shot in the film. It goes on and on. And with no cuts -- writer-director David Lowery reportedly shot it in one take -- we see Rooney Mara stuffing her face, and swallowing, bite after bite.

Apparently critics are divided and Sundance audiences talked a great deal about it; I'm conflicted about it myself. Although it's the longest shot in the film, it's far from the only shot that seems to go on far longer than necessary, and it was during this shot that I was truly pulled out of the movie. I stopped thinking about the characters and couldn't help but think about the production. What was the conversation like?

"You're going to eat an entire pie on camera."

"An entire pie?"

"An entire pie, yes."

I guess I feel better knowing it was only done in one take. I found myself wondering how many takes they did it in while I was watching. Because this movie has a great many scenes, especially in its first half, that go on so long that your mind naturally wanders. This doesn't seem like the greatest reflection of a film, that it takes "cinema as art" so much more seriously than "cinema as entertainment" that it seriously tests patience. Then again, there's something to be said for longer attention spans.

And there is certainly context here: the dead boyfriend exists through the entire film -- and through the vast expanse of time -- as a ghost, and one who is forced to endure the tedium of eternity. This movie is all of 92 minutes long, and its first half feels like an eternity. It presents a very well-constructed portrait of existential questions, none stated explicitly but all very effectively felt.

And then there is the ghost itself, yet another thing that takes a while to get past. Clearly it's a pointed and very deliberate decision to make the ghost a sheet with two eye holes, the most old-school, cliche presentation of a ghost there's ever been. The way he appears thus is relatively clever: the body, covered in a sheet on a slab, suddenly sits up -- and takes the sheet with it. Cut to the ghost standing in a hallway, and for no discernible reason, there are dark eye holes. Is it dumb? Funny? A statement? All of the above?

The ghost is presented with what seems to be a portal through one of the hospital walls, and he makes a decision. He walks home. And there he stays, pining for his love lost, helpless as she, and the world, moves on and he cannot. After a while watching this film it occurred to me that it might well qualify for academic study. Once you get past its challenges -- and that takes some effort -- the story haunts, and lingers in the mind well after the story is over.

A Ghost Story even brings things full circle in a uniquely satisfying way. It still lingers too long on too many shots even as this happens, but at least in its second half, far more compelling events begin to take place, as the ghost, holding onto this location, observes -- and occasionally interferes with -- successive inhabitants of the house.

It could be said that this movie transcends genre. "Drama" is perhaps the best choice, only for lack of a better word. "Horror" could apply, although it's much more of a horror from the ghost's perspective, and even then it's from an angle of existentialism rather than straightforward fear. That said, there were at least two moments in the film that scared the shit out of me.

In any case, eventually, A Ghost Story very much won me over. The challenge is in getting to that point, where the movie even has that ability. The director himself has spoken in interviews about how that pie scene might go on so long that people give up and walk out. I never walk out of movies, but that scene alone had me convinced I was going to pan the movie, especially considering how many other scenes go on too long with literally nothing actually happening. Nothing, of course, except for the ghost standing and observing, ever so slowly becoming aware of his own helplessness.

It'll work for some people and won't work at all for others. It didn't work for me at all, until it very much did.

Overall: B

WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES

Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B
Special Effects: A-

There's nothing inherently wrong with War for the Planet of the Apes, but there's nothing inherently great about it either. If there's anything that has consistently improved over the course of the current series of films in this franchise, it's the special effects. If you're looking for fantastic spectacle, this movie has more than its fair share of it and will deliver what you want at the multiplex.

That aside, I'm not sure how many of these "Apes" movies the world really needs. This one is getting notably better reviews than the previous two, and I'm honestly a little baffled by that. This one is indeed solid entertainment, which is exactly what I called the last one, 2014's Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. It's no better or worse than its predecessor, though. It's just another one.

It's also the longest of these newer films, at 140 minutes, and I suppose the script writers -- and the editors -- should be commended for keeping the story at a steady clip for all of that time; this movie is never boring. That said, half an hour could also have been shaved off with little consequence.

The first in what can currently be considered a trilogy, in 2011, was called Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and with no numbers attached to these titles, it's already confusing as to the sequencing. In what world is it logical for the "dawn" to follow the "rise"? Then again, these are movies in which mature gorillas, which weigh upwards of 350 lbs, have no problem horseback riding. Then again, some of these apes also speak English, so maybe let's not get into a discussion of suspension of disbelief.

A couple of title cards in this movie set things straight for us, using "Rise" and "Dawn" in bold and in sequence as a brief recap of all that had occurred before. The apes are hiding in the woods from a last band of human soldiers desperate to keep their species going.

This time we get Woody Harrelson as the villain, a crazy colonel who not only rounds up apes and enslaves them as workers building a wall around his fortress -- one not that dissimilar from the one in the last movie -- but also kills any human who has lost their ability to speak coherently. The "simian flu" has mutated, you see, and is turning some humans into degenerating animals who can't talk or think straight. Caesar the ape and a small band of ape comrades wind up taking care of a little girl they have orphaned (Amiah Miller), and she has this condition -- yet for some reason she is more mute than anything else, and can clearly still think straight.

Most of the plot here has Caesar, once again played -- brilliantly -- with motion capture by Andy Serkis, out for revenge against this colonel. This allows for some soul searching and the question of how similar he may be becoming to Koba, the villainous ape from the previous film.

The location setting of the story is somewhat disappointingly limited to one place for most of the story: the colonel and his small army's fortress on a snowy mountainside, which they are enslaving captured apes to help them fortify against another army of humans who rightly think he's gone off his rocker. Still, director Matt Reeves manages to provide us with some fairly dazzling effects sequences, including a very impressive avalanche.

The digital renderings of all the different kinds of apes is as impressive as ever, if not more so; Caesar is in particular amazingly expressive. The same can be said of "Bad Ape," a new character played by Steve Zahn who also happens to be able to speak and provides the film's smattering of comic relief.

Is War for the Planet of the Apes essential, though? I'm not sure I'd go that far. If you just want to go to the movies and be entertained, and the concept continues to intrigue you, then it's not going to disappoint. No one's expecting a high-minded intellectual exercise here. It could use a bit of that, to be honest -- something the original film from the sixties actually had, rather than just being a blockbuster entertainment. When it comes down to it, anyone interested in this movie won't regret seeing it; anyone who waits until they can watch it streaming at home won't think they missed out on much either.

Overall: B

OUR TIME WILL COME

Directing: B
Acting: B
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B

If the trailers that are running before Our Time Will Come -- all of which are also for Chinese films -- are any indication, then most Chinese films getting a run in the U.S. are over-the-top, special effects cornball extravaganzas. Knowing little about Our Time Will Come, these trailers might make you wonder what you're in for. But rest assured: this film is a straightforward drama, and a well-constructed one with a point of view not often seen in American movie houses.

Here we have the story of guerilla fighters resisting the Japanese in early-1940s occupied Hong Kong. It's easy for Americans to glean over the many stories from World War II that actually have nothing to do with America, of which there are countless -- it's just that, naturally, our cinema history focuses on American involvement, especially when it comes to the Japanese. But of course, the Japanese were all about conquering their part of the world, including China.

Our Time Will Come doesn't exactly offer a broad lesson on Chinese mid-20th-century history, and nor should it: it tells the true story of a young woman, Lan (Xun Zhou), who finds herself recruited into participating in these guerilla efforts. She is charmed by the guerilla Urban and Firearms Unit captain, Blackie (Eddie Peng), while the man who wants to marry her, Kam-Wing (Wallace Huo), winds up working for the Japanese.

And then there's her mother, Mrs. Fong (Deannie Yip), who until all these distractions had been working quietly as a landlord with Lan. Lan wants to help her country defeat the Japanese; her mother, naturally, wants her to stay alive.

This mother-daughter relationship slowly comes into focus as the most important in this story, and Lan ultimately must make a decision about it that is devastating. These are the costs of war, but director Ann Hui never hammers that home as its point. She's painting a broad portrait of a way of life at a specific place and time.

The plot is somewhat complicated, and it took me a while to feel like I had a real sense of what was going on. Characters that seem significant in the beginning turn out to get relatively short screen time -- as in the author tenant Lan helps escape the city in the film's extended opening sequence. Leftist intellectuals are unwelcome by the Chinese; Lan, who had been a teacher, isn't even allowed to do her job any longer.

This is a story that takes its time to unspool, which means there are plenty who won't have the patience for it. There are even some film stills in other reviews that show Lan with a gun -- and she does indeed use one a few times -- which creates the false impression of more action than there is. There are indeed scenes that depict chaos and gun fights, but they are few enough to heighten their impact.

This complex plot is well constructed, however, and with a bit of effort to stick with it, Our Time Will Come offers unique rewards. Lan is herself a worthy protagonist, a woman not portrayed as a badass so much as a young woman of quiet strength and conviction -- a refreshingly realistic role model. It's not even clear at the very beginning that the story revolves around her, but her importance steadily pulls into focus.

The same could be said of the film overall: it takes something as broad as the second World War and narrows it down to one strand that offers a unique clarity on historical events.

Xun Zhou joins the ranks of guerilla fighters with quiet conviction in Our Time Will Come.

Overall: B

MAUDIE

Directing: A-
Acting: A-
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A- If you know little about art, like me, then perhaps you have never heard of Maud Lewis, a woman famous for her folk art paintings until he death in Nova Scotia in 1970. You thus also perhaps did not know that Maudie, starring Sally Hawkins as Maud and Ethan Hawke as her husband, Everett Lewis, was based on their story. It's a story that covers a lot of years, starting from the time Maud left the care of her cold aunt and selfish brother to answer an ad for a live-in housekeeper. She was in her mid-thirties; Everett was forty. He lived in a one-room house outside of town and felt he needed help with housework -- which, eventually, he wound up tending to himself while Maud spent her time painting. These two had their own clear sets of challenges. Maud lived with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which caused her to hunch over and have some difficulty both walking and holding paint brushes. But not only did she manage, but one would be loathe to say she "suffered" from this condition -- indeed, Maud is a woman who easily appreciates the simplest pleasures of life. She loves a window. When she explains why to the woman who starts commissioning paintings from her (a lovely Kari Matchett), it's almost eye-opening. It makes sense. Everett, for his part, is almost cripplingly emotionally repressed, if not of below average intelligence. He doesn't quite know how to deal with Maud at first, and is briefly violent. For a woman in the late thirties and forties, Maud proves surprisingly assertive. She finds way to stand her ground. These two never quite seem to know how to talk to each other, but a love grows between them over the years that is very sweet. Maud paints for pleasure, and at first she starts with charming little illustrations on the walls of her and Everett's tiny little house. Eventually her paintings get noticed, and even start making money. Over time, this is a slight complication in a relationship between two simple people who are living an otherwise very simple life together. And it all unfolds with a quiet confidence thanks to director Aisling Walsh and writer Sherry White, who tell us this story in an unassuming yet completely absorbing way. And Sally Hawkins and Ethan Hawke each give stellar performances, which on their own turn Maudie a film that demands attention. We follow them over the course of decades, and yet it never feels rushed -- a rare achievement in film. By the end, after we've seen them spend a life together and then contend with endings, it does turn into a bit of a tear jerker. If you're looking for a good cry, you could do worse than this. Maud and Everett are two very different people who found each other by chance, one's effortless charm slowly eroding the other's obstinately hardened exterior. You'll fall in love with both of them. Overall: A-

[Archive of older A-grade movies on LiveJournal]

THE LITTLE HOURS

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B
Editing: B What The Little Hours has going for it is this: it's an anachronistic comedy set in the 14th century. If it proves anything, it's that the simplest of settings can be turned into comedy gold. It's just not as golden as it otherwise perhaps could have been. To clarify, the only particularly noticeable anachronism here is in the way the characters speak to each other. Alison Brie, Aubrey Plaza and Kate Micucci all play nuns in a convent, each presumably there for different reasons -- this was in a time when all manner of circumstances brought women to live in convents; it wasn't all just "a calling" to God. Brie's character, Alessandra, is literally waiting -- in vain -- for a suitor to come along and take her away from there. Her father, in a cameo by Paul Riser, is one of this church's largest benefactors. And there's something weirdly feminist about the presentation of the story here. I don't mean that as a criticism per se; it just feels odd, as presented in this way. This is very much an ensemble cast, in which women get by far the most screen time, as well as lines. The women in this convent must contend with their own desires when the priest (John C. Reilly) brings in a servant on the run (Dave Franco) who had been having an affair with the wife (Lauren Weedman) of his master (Nick Offerman). For his own safety -- from the nuns more than from his master -- the servant is presented as a "deaf mute." It is established very early on that the nuns don't take kindly to their gardener deigning to speak to them. They respond with foul-mouthed hostility that is as amusing as it is befuddling. The title credits, which use a font I've never seen before but still managers to look seventies-retro, indicate to us this story is based on The Decameron, by 14th-century Italian author Giovanni Boccaccio. So there is some very, very old source material here -- although the writing credit otherwise goes solely to Jeff Baena, who also directed. When the story begins, it's pretty simplistic: we see one of the nuns guiding a donkey that we later learned escaped the grounds back to its home. Eventually things get complicated enough that the story incorporates fluid sexuality, romantic deceit, and even a rather strong dash of witchcraft. I'll give The Little Hours credit for that: few movies are less predictable. And it does have plenty of laughs, a large percentage of which come from the way these characters talk to each other in the context of their 14th-century existence. But it never quite coalesces as a solid story. There's a persistent unevenness here that's difficult to shake. It's like a truly fascinating experiment -- something you really can't look away from, from beginning to end, and that alone makes it arguably worth a look. But in the end, as relatively fun as it is, it really doesn't quite add up to the sum of its parts. Overall: B

[Archive of older B-grade movies on LiveJournal]

THE BIG SICK

Directing: A
Acting: A-
Writing: A
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A I'm not sure The Big Sick is the best title for a movie this great. It kind of conjures, without context, images of projectile vomit. You should be happy to hear this movie contains none of that. And on the other hand, there's still some real truth in advertising there: it really is about a woman who has to be put into a medically induced coma for several days. And that really is the backdrop for a story presented successfully as a romantic comedy -- one that is not only consistently funny but a truly original vision. It's hard not to be in this case, given that it's largely based on Kumail Nanjiani's real-life experience with his wife, Emily V. Gordon, who co-wrote the essentially perfect script with Nanjiani, who also stars. This really was what happened to them at the start of their relationship: they had not been dating long when Emily got sick and had to be put into a medically induced coma until she could be treated successfully. Much of the dressing around that, in this movie, is fictionalized or at least embellished, a skill at which both Nanjiani and Gordon, as writers, excel. This rather crazy start to a long term relationship being based on a real event still lends the story an unusual authenticity. Not only is this nothing like anything else in theatres -- which is a major compliment -- but it also has an air of truth. Amazingly for a story this complicated, neither the tragic elements nor the humor are ever forced. And there's a lot going on, even before Emily gets sick and hospitalized, maybe an hour into the movie. Kumail is a first-generation American Muslim whose parents are constantly bringing over would-be brides for the traditional marriage everyone else in his family has gone through. It's sad that this has to be mentioned, but it must be stated: The Big Sick also stands apart, big time, for its positive portrayal of Muslims in America. Kumail's family provides much fodder for very effective comedy, but never at the expense of their culture or their religion, both of which are clearly important to them and portrayed respectfully. Naturally they would be, given who co-wrote the script. On that point alone, America needs this movie right now. When Emily does get sick, after Kumail's dishonestly about his parents potentially disowning him over dating a white girl results in their breakup, he winds up staying at the hospital nearly the entire time she's there -- along with her parents, who fly in from North Carolina. In a very strange, truly unusual scenario, Kumail gets to know Emily's parents with the backdrop of worry and grief, mixed with initial resentments that eventually evolve into appreciation. Nanjiani and Zoe Kazan as Kumail and Emily are excellent as the central characters, but The Big Sick would simply not be the same without the supporting players: truly wonderful Holly Hunter and Ray Romano as Emily's parents; Zenobia Shroff and famous veteran Indian actor Anupam Kher are every bit as good as Kumail's parents. This stellar cast not only gives The Big Sick an unusually prestigious pedigree for a comedy -- let alone a romantic comedy -- it elevates its very sense of performance in general. Few comedies have performances this nuanced. And I want to stress how funny this movie is. I mean, it's not going to make you laugh until it hurts -- that wouldn't be appropriate for this movie. What it will do is regularly surprise you with its humor, with jokes coming at a steady clip, the humor rooted in real comedic skill, on both the parts of the actors and the writers. The core of this story is obviously rather sad, and yet the writers, and director Michael Showalter, manage to infuse plenty of humor even in the midst of what are for the characters unbearably difficult circumstances. And the humor still works, which is perhaps most impressive of all. To call this a delicate scenario would be an understatement, and everyone involved in this movie walks the line perfectly. I can't even think of any real criticism for this movie, a rare thing indeed. This is a film the fires on on cylinders. Everything in it works: it's touching, it's charming, it finds inventive ways to get you invested in the characters. It's just too bad about that title, at least for anyone who doesn't know anything more about this movie. The Big Sick will likely rely heavily on word of mouth. Well, take my word for it then. See this movie. You'll be glad you did. Overall: A

[Archive of older A-grade movies on LiveJournal]