Advance: I, TONYA

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

Anyone old enough to remember 1994 will get some serious déjà vu watching I, Tonya. Remember Tonya Harding crying with her skate-covered foot propped up on the judges' table? The way I remember it, I was an 18-year-old judging her from my living room: look at this bitch, trying to convince us all of her innocence, she isn't fooling anybody. I had no idea how much I had been duped by the sensationalized media coverage.

And therein lies the magic of I, Tonya, which tells the story from Harding's perspective, underscores how fundamentally unfairly she was treated her entire career, and how little she directly had to do with the assault on Nancy Kerrigan . . . maybe.

Time changes everything, after all, and plenty of people these days are eager to come forward and talk about how horrible Kerrigan apparently was. Not that she deserved a club to the knee. But there now seems to be plenty of empathy around for Tonya Harding. That's certainly the tone of I, Tonya, which presents Harding as a deeply flawed individual, maybe even sometimes a bad person -- but treated so bady, by the press and by her own family, that it's easy to come down on her side.

Margot Robbie gives an incredible performance as Harding, embodying the young woman with a trashy background that the media loved to look down on her for, without ever turning her into caricature. She more than meets her match in Allison Janney as her hard-driving and often very abusive mother.

And that brings us to one of the common criticisms of I, Tonya, that it makes light of domestic violence and uses it for entertainment -- and I didn't really get that from it. A lot of domestic violence is indeed depicted here, which is arguably odd for what I suppose could best be called a tragicomedy, but not to would have been disingenuous. Harding had a mother who hit her, who at one point threw a knife into her arm, and the cycle continued with Harding's husband. It's sad, but hardly abnormal, for a woman to find it difficult to break up with an abusive man and also stay away from him.

This husband, Jeff Gillooly (Sebastian Stan), turned out to be one of the people who set into motion the events that resulted in Nancy Kerrigan, Harding's primary rival in figure skating, assaulted. If this movie -- and Tonya Harding herself -- is to be believed, Harding had very little knowledge of the "plan" hatched by Jeff's jaw-droppingly idiotic friends, who turned what started as just sending threatening letters into bashing a kneecap.

Director Craig Gillespie here unfolds the story with precision and skill, first introducing us to Harding as a young girl obsessed with ice skating, with a domineering mother (and Janney does an excellent job of making her as scary as she is funny), and waiting until about halfway through the film to get into the details of the assault. By then, we have really gotten to know these characters, all of them presented with greater nuance than you'd expect from a movie about a supposedly trashy figure skater. Not one of these characters devolves into caricature, and they quite easily could have.

If I had any real complaint about this movie, it would be that Nancy Kerrigan herself features so little in it. She does appear as a character, but I think the only line she actually utters onscreen is the infamous crying "Whyyyy?" that we all saw on the news. Sure, this is very much Tonya Harding's story, but she is far more interconnected with Nancy Kerrigan in the real world than she seems to be in this movie -- when she interrupts the narrative just a couple of times to make quick observations. For instance, that they were once roommates and partied together. A little more of that fleshed out would actually have done I, Tonya some good. I feel like giving the woman who portrayed her, Caitlin Carver, a shout-out just because she gets so sidelined.

On the other hand, it was Harding herself who got sidelined constantly, never for particularly good reasons, and she was a genuinely great figure skater -- the first American woman to land a triple axel in competition, after all. I, Tonya offers an insightful look at the world she came from, and how it informed her often very bad decisions. You can't necessarily condone a lot of her actions, but Margot Robbie in particular makes you understand why she did them. Here is a woman dealt a punishment wildly out of proportion to the crime -- well, at least, what crime she actually committed herself.

I, Tonya also features plenty of scenes with Harding's performances, and they are edited and shot beautifully. Watching this movie, you'll laugh, you'll cringe, you'll leave this movie pondering what a sad story Tonya Harding's really was, while also having been thoroughly entertained for two hours.

Love her or hate her, this is a story worth the time.

Love her or hate her, this is a story worth the time.

Overall: A-

Opens Thursday evening, January 4.

MOLLY'S GAME

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

If Molly's Game is any indication, then a whole lot of people in Hollywood were eager to work with Aaron Sorkin for his directorial debut. Jessica Chastain as the title character -- based on the real life woman who was targeted by the FBI after years of running a high stakes poker game -- is the tip of the iceberg.

Since the parade of recognizable faces is one of the most memorable things about the film, we might as well go through the list: Idris Elba as her laywer; Kevin Costner as her father; Michael Cera and Chris O'Dowd as a couple of the many rotating poker players. Many of the other players are character actors recognizable from other things but not quite famous enough to be remembered by name. And speaking of Kevin Costner, he seems to have found a later-career niche in supporting parts to which he's well-suited, which is a relief after a career of very steep highs and very deep lows.

The real "star" of Molly's Game, the name that is liable to bring in fans more than any other, is Aaron Sorkin himself -- the famed writer of A Few Good Men, The West Wing, The Social Network, Moneyball and Steve Jobs. Through these projects for both film and television, Sorkin also revealed some well-known patterns. I can say that Molly's Game doesn't have so much of the "walk and talk" scenes -- but it sure is packed with the talking.

A bit too much of it, I would say. Sorkin is so enamored with his own writing that it can take another person as director to reign him in a little, and narrow the focus on his otherwise often crackling writing. Here he is the director as well as writer, however, and he rather lets loose, giving Molly way too much voice-over narration. This starts from the very beginning, with a prologue about Molly's early career as a competitive skier, and it quickly gets close to being crazy making. Come on, Sorkin -- show, don't tell!

To be fair, when depicting poker games, a little narration can actually be helpful, as the players can spend a lot of time in silence otherwise. And the many poker games shown in Molly's Game are as about as compelling as one could ask for, and I don't have any interest otherwise in card games.

What makes this a story worth telling is the unfairness of the FBI targeting Molly Bloom, seeking punishment far out of proportion to the crime, and also the ultimate integrity of Bloom herself. Having no knowledge of the real-life Molly Bloom, I can't speak to how closely Sorkin hews to actual facts here. But I can say that it certainly is fun to see a movie about a woman dominating in a specific world populated by powerful men.

Later insights about Molly being a woman with a domineering father now seeking to control powerful man are a little on the nose. Regardless, Molly's Game impressively avoids overt contrivances for the most part, which is an easy trap in a story about someone making money off of rich gamblers. The players themselves are a lively bunch with diverse personality types; Michael Cera in particular does a nice job depicting a movie star with a ruthless streak.

Chastain carries the film, though, and is up to the task -- this is an unusual part for her, but she slips into it smoothly, all confidence and subtle defiance. Cinema still needs more strong female characters like this. The fact that she talks way too much in voice-over isn't her fault -- it's Aaron Sorkin's. This is a guy proving that he can helm a film on his own, but also reveals some opportunity for improvement. Molly's Game may be engaging from start to finish, but it still doesn't need to be packed with people talking slightly too fast for 140 minutes. This means there are better options for spending your time in a movie theatre, but this is still a perfectly good choice for the streaming platform of your choice in a few months.

Who's up for a game of Monopoly? Sorry? Cards Against Immunity?

Who's up for a game of Monopoly? Sorry? Cards Against Immunity?

Overall: B

Cinema 2017: Best & Worst

Below are the ten most satisfying and memorable films I saw in 2017:

the landing 10. The Landing A-

Spoiler alert! The best documentary of the year turns out not to be a documentary at all -- and I was completely duped by it, thanks in large part to my having seen it at the Seattle International Film Festival based only on their synopsis -- which gives no indication of it being fake. Rather than being a "mockumentary," however, it's more like an elaborate trick, with some truly impressive production details to pull it off. Started as a silent short shot 25 years ago and set in 1973, presented as footage of astronauts wrecked in China after the Apollo 18 space capsule landed, it is here expanded to feature length, featuring the very same actors (now aged naturally the same amount) offering "interviews" set in 1998. They then offer reflections of their memories of what happened. It's difficult to say whether this movie would be as impressive to someone who already knows it's not real, but for me to say why I found it so impressive, that's a detail I have to reveal. I found it all so real, these people presenting their cases as to whether one of the three astronauts killed the other two out there in the Chinese desert or not, that I couldn't help to consider it one of the best films I saw this year.

What I said then: The Landing is an unusually absorbing film, both as a narrative story and as a supposed documentary. I really can't compliment the actors enough. One of them swears a lot, but even he comes across as just some regular guy. That's what makes it so believable, these talking heads who feel like any such person in a documentary film -- interesting people by varying degrees, but never overtly outlandish.

all the money in the world 9. All the Money in the World A-

A late-addition to my top 10 for the year, indeed, and fittingly so, given that Kevin Spacey was replaced by Christopher Plummer and then his many scenes were re-shot over the course of eight days, with the help of Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg over the Thanksgiving holiday week, all of one month before the film's scheduled release. It does beg the question: would this film have made it onto my top 10 without this amazing achievement? Had it remained with Kevin Spacey, all caked under old-age makeup -- and in spite of his acting talent, setting aside for the moment that he turned out to be weirdly douchey -- it almost certainly would not have. But, what if the part had been played by Christopher Plummer all along? He is superb as the monstrous J. Paul Getty, and his performance is more than matched by Michelle Williams as his ex-daughter-in-law, trying to get him to assist in rescuing her kidnapped son. The final result of this film is as one of the year's best, made all the more impressive by how seamlessly it was reconstructed.

What I said then: All the Money in the World is riveting from start to finish, filled with suspense and intrigue, stunningly well put together for something that had to be taken apart and put back together again in such short order.

saturday church 8. Saturday Church A-

The second of three films on this list from the year's film festivals, and one of two from Seattle's "TWIST" Queer Film Festival, Saturday Church is named after a real-life church program for LGBT youth, and here takes a rare look at the T part of queerness -- without ever naming it, specifically. We don't even know, necessarily, what the gender identity of young Ulysses (the excellent Luka Kain) is -- only that Ulysses has a budding interest in women's clothes, which is met with resistance from a family still grieving the loss of its father. These are all the elements of a heavy tragedy, but Saturday Church lightens the mood -- or, barring that, eases the burden -- with musical flourishes depicting Ulysses's fantasies, all the while presenting some lovely singing, especially from several of the real-life trans women of color cast in many supporting parts. Here is a movie that offers both timeliness and escape while still reflecting the world as it really is.

What I said then: This movie goes out of its way to reflect the stark realities of many trans women of color in particular, the wide range of attitudes toward sex work and the constraints on finding lasting relationships. What makes this movie truly stand apart is how it spends equal time on the unequivocal joys that can also be found along the journey of authentic self-discovery.

coco 7. Coco A-

If you don't cry during the last five minutes of Coco, you are perhaps not a human being. My husband cried at this movie, and I don't believe I had ever seen him cry at any movie! But don't worry -- it's a good kind of cry, the kind that is the result of something so moving that the waterworks just take over. And up until that point, Coco is somewhat uncharacteristically straightforward for a typical Pixar film, actually removing it slightly from the reasons I typically love that animation studio's output -- you won't find all that much cracklingly clever humor here. There is still humor, though, just of a more timeless nature, always tied to the bonds of family between generations, and the fond memories of loved ones who have passed on. Much of this story takes place in the Land of the Dead, and the animation is as spectacular as Pixar's history of excellence on that front would have you expect. A plethora of characters who are actually skeletons are also a lot more expressive than you might expect. In fact, Coco would easily qualify as the one film on this list liable to get an equal amount of love from people of all ages.

What I said then: Rarely is an animated film as textured in its storytelling as it is in its visual scope, and Coco delivers in spades on all fronts. The final fifteen minutes or so are particularly moving, and tie it all together in ways not easily predicted from the beginning of the story.

lady bird 6. Lady Bird A-

Maybe once in a generation does a movie come along that so perfectly captures both the joys and struggles of adolescence, and of working through relationships with sometimes difficult but always loving parents. Lady Bird also doubles as, of all things, a love letter to Sacramento, California -- "the Midwest of California," one of the best lines in any movie this year. Saoirse Ronan is wonderful as the title character, going through pretty typical late-teen stuff and enduring a relatably loving yet contentious relationship with her mother (a fantastic Laurie Metcalf). There are no histrionics here, no overwrought melodrama, not even any particularly tragic moments -- just a finely tuned portrait of a young woman coming into her own with a little grace and a lot of humor.

What I said then: Greta Gerwig has a singularly open-hearted style, always a delight to see onscreen, and with Lady Bird we get to see how it translates when she’s behind the camera. This is a tale with a unique sincerity, completely lacking in judgment – for its characters, or even for the religion they follow.

get out 5. Get Out A-

Something just occurred to me about this movie, arguably the biggest box office surprise of the year ($175.4 million haul to date, for a movie with a budget of $4.5 million): its release in late February suggests, perhaps, it was not expected to be a huge success. A cult hit, maybe -- but late January and February releases are typically when studios dump the crap, the movies expected to make the least amount of money, after the Oscar-bait releases of the fall. Get Out is a clear example of that slowly changing, as to say this movie had lasting legs would be an understatement -- and rightfully so: the experience of it is enriched with multiple viewings, and it becomes more impressive upon further reflection. It easily falls into the category of horror comedy -- an effective example of both genres -- yet its sensibility is unique, at least in the realm of cinema. Honestly the less you know about the story before going in, the better. Just take my word for it and see this movie, like, yesterday. It's terrifying, it's hilarious, it features top-notch performances across the board, and it challenges viewers with its take on race in America in all the right ways -- likely in different ways depending on the background and real-life experience of the viewer. The power and cultural impact of Get Out cannot be understated.

What I said then: The more I think about Get Out, the more impressed I get. This isn't just a surprisingly solid horror movie. It's so well constructed that it successfully entices genre skeptics like myself. It's a great movie, period.

the salesman 4. The Salesman A

Here is a rightly constructed story pointedly presented with no easy answers. A childless Iranian couple playing parts in a local production of Death of a Salesman, face the possibility of their production being censored by the government. I'm certain there are parallels between the story of this movie and that of Death of a Salesman, although I have no real familiarity with that play -- which had no effect on how much this film impressed me. When this couple are forced to move into an apartment in the building managed by the play's director, the wife is attacked in the shower and cannot remember enough details about it. Certain details that are known -- right down to the fact that she left her front door open, expecting the husband -- leave the woman uniquely vulnerable in a society wrought with sexism revealed in this story in many subtle ways. It is no doubt such nuances that won The Salesman the Oscar for Best Foreign film in 2017, which was very much deserved -- and also indicates it was technically a 2016 movie. But, it goes on this year's list for me because it was not released in my local market until March 2017. It's too good a movie for me not to include it in this year's list.

What I said then: There are no clear-cut heroes or villains here, only gray areas that get even grayer the closer the characters get to the truth. It's mesmerizing from start to finish, all on the strength of its narrative force, its dialogue, and its performances. It's easily one of the best films of the year.

bpm 3. BPM (Beats Per Minute) A

So, yes, there's a lot of queerness in my top 10 this year -- three of the ten films are about gay or trans people. This reflects my own bias of interests, sure, but is also a good thing: 30% isn't that high (35% if you count a supporting character in Lady Bird who turns out to be gay), especially considering how few of the characters in all movies are in any way queer. BPM, for its part, looks at a truly specific part of history: the guerilla tactics of ACT UP activists in early-nineties Paris. Its gay characters who fall in love in the midst of barely controlled chaos, its tastefully frank depiction of gay sex, and even its predictably tragic end presented with a tenderness all its own all set this movie apart. It presents a very specific slice of history and European culture with a delicate balance.

What I said then: [F]rom the very start, BPM pulsates with tension and urgency; it crackles with excitement until it inevitably evolves into the dread of personal loss. You don't expect this kind of energy when the setting starts in a classroom of political activists discussing strategy.

the big sick 2. The Big Sick A

Until seeing Call Me By Your Name, I really thought The Big Sick would turn out to be my #1 movie of the year -- and they are still neck and neck, for different reasons. I really can't recommend The Big Sick enough, even though it can be a challenge to get people to give it a chance when they regard it as a mainstream romantic comedy -- and it is anything but typical. It does qualify as a romantic comedy, but within a wildly unique context: much of the story takes place while the couple in question have broken up; the woman is in an induced coma; and the man is getting to know the woman's parents (Ray Romano and Holly Hunter, both reasons alone to see this movie) in the meantime. The man also happens to be Pakistani-American, played by comedian Kumail Nanjiani, who co-wrote the script with wife Emily V. Gordon, loosely based on their own experience with the exact same scenario. Equal time is given to Kumail's family, with parents played by famous Indian actor Anupam Kher and Zenobia Shroff, who are just as delightful as Romano and Hunter. We get plenty of culture-clashing humor on both sides, often truly hilarious and never played for cheap laughs -- this is a comedy with unusual depth, given the gravity of the situation they are all in. If nothing else, The Big Sick is a rare achievement as a great movie that is unlikely any other ever made.

What I said then: 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.

call me by your name 1. Call Me By Your Name A

Here come the gays again! Truly though, this is just a great and timeless love story, full stop. Armie Hammer is the twentysomething college student doing research while staying with a professor's family in Northern Italy; Timothée Chalamet is the 17-year-old son who reluctantly befriends him, until they unwittingly fall in love with each other. The infamous "peach scene" notwithstanding, it's all pretty straightforward, and it takes a while for it to dawn on the viewer how great this movie truly is -- which is but one of its many delights. It's a story with no ulterior motives, except to make you invested in all of its characters -- including Elio's parents, and especially his dad, played with moving compassion by Michael Stuhlbarg. After months on the festival circuit, Call Me By Your Name has become a bit of a cultural flashpoint in the context of cinema, making it for many of us the same-sex love story we've all been waiting for -- and that includes audiences of all sexualities. Being about two young men does not keep this movie's themes from being universal; this is easily the most beautiful and moving love story of the year, and many other years as well.

What I said then: Call Me By Your Name contains no emotional cataclysms. It merely draws you in, slowly and confidently, until you just want to wrap yourself in its sweetness, its simple purity. There is a soothing steadiness to its overall tone, and there is sadness in just having the story end.

Five Worst -- or the worst of those I saw

the shape of water 5. The Shape of Water C+

Contrarian time! I gave ten movies this year a C+, and could only choose two of them to include in my list of the five that I responded to the most negatively. And my aversion to this film, in the face of widespread critical and audience acclaim, is largely what prompted me to include it -- I simply must make my case that this movie is wildly overrated. If they actually had any truth in advertising, this movie would indeed be called Elisa Fucks a Fish -- or an amphibian, anyway. A fish-man. A humanoid animal character listed in the credits as "Amphibian Man." Sure, Sally Hawkins -- as well as most of the rest of the cast -- is great, but I just can't get on the side of a childlike yet excessively horny woman (she masturbates to a timer every morning) who has actual intercourse with an amphibian man drudged up from a river in South America. Seriously, what the shit? Why do so few other people not seem to have any problem with this? The Shape of Water has plenty of redeeming elements to its production, but when it comes to the key aspect of its story, all I can say is: I just can't.

What I said then: "Forbidden love," a timeless trope, is one thing. In this case, all I can think of is how amphibian sex gives "slippery slope" new meaning. This isn't a boy and a girl from rival families. It's literal bestiality.

valerian and the city of a thousand planets 4. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets C+

Here is a movie that wastes far too much effort for an end result so relentlessly dull. It's a feast for the senses until the sensory overload just leaves you numb, with no hope of revival from a fundamentally uninspired script and lead actors with zero charisma or chemistry. Who the hell cast this movie, anyway? That casting director should be fired.

What I said then: 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.

life 3. Life C

This movie can be summed up in one word: derivative. Of course, one could argue that by definition all stories are derivative, but Life is unusually overt about it. Why waste your time on this movie instead of getting far more out of re-watching the several far superior science fiction films that clearly inspired it? This is an attempt at turning diminishing returns into an art form -- a self-defeating prospect if there ever was one.

What I said then: This movie does not have a shred of originality any corner of any frame. It's as though Alien and Gravity had a baby, but the baby had to be given up for adoption, to be nurtured by caretakers who had only the most generalized ideas of its roots. It might as well have been named Gravien.

mother! 2. mother! C-

I genuinely hated the very experience of sitting through this movie, and the only reason it isn't ranked as the worst movie I saw all year is because Michelle Pfeiffer was its one redeeming value, and Geostorm is objectively worse, on pretty much all fronts. I mean, one thing I could say about mother! is that it isn't lazy -- on the contrary, it tries way too hard in its oppressively pretentious endeavor to be Biblical allegory, only to fall on the sword of its own hubris. As soon as the credits rolled I said out loud, "Fuck this movie!" -- and in spite of all the insights into its allegorical meanings I have gleaned from further reading after the fact, I firmly stand by that.

What I said then: The pretension seeping through every surface of mother! begins with its very title. What's with that exclamation point? To me, it punctuates the contempt I feel for this movie.

geostorm 1. Geostorm D+

Geostorm is holy-shit stupid. Not even seeing it in a "4DX" theatre, where the seats bounce around like an amusement park ride, could make it more fun or compelling. It's this year's 2012, and if you can believe it, is far worse than that movie was -- at least 2012 had a sense of awareness of how dumb it was. How many movies depicting tidal waves annihilating cityscapes do we need, anyway? Just throw this one on top of the pile, and rightfully forget about it.

What I said then: The thing with Geostorm ... is that it's like someone took the standard disaster-movie formula and willfully made it even dumber.


Complete 2017 film log:

1. 1/4 Jackie A (2nd viewing)
2. 1/7 Rogue One: A Star Wars Story B (2nd viewing)
3. 1/10 Silence B
4. 1/12 20th Century Women B+
5. 1/15 Paterson B-
6. 1/17 Lion A-
7. 1/22 The Founder B-
8. 1/23 Hidden Figures B+
9. 1/29 Julieta B
10. 2/5 I Am Not Your Negro B+
11. 2/11 The LEGO Batman Movie B
12. 2/15 John Wick Chapter 2 B
13. 2/18 Oscar-Nominated Shorts: Live Action A-
14. 2/19 Oscar-Nominated Shorts: Animation B+
15. 2/23 The Red Turtle B+
16. 2/25 Get Out A-
17. 2/28 A United Kingdom B-
18. 3/1 The Boss Baby C+ **
19. 3/4 Kedi B (2nd viewing)
20. 3/5 The Brand New Testament B+
21. 3/6 The Salesman A
22. 3/8 The Sense of an Ending B **
23. 3/11 Kong: Skull Island B
24. 3/12 My Life as a Zucchini B
25. 3/20 Logan B+
26. 3/21 Raw B+ **
27. 3/22 Beauty and the Beast B+
28. 3/26 The Lure C+
29. 3/27 Life C
30. 3/31 T2 Trainspotting B
31. 4/2 Land of Mine B+
32. 4/3 Personal Shopper B
33. 4/11 Frantz B+
34. 4/19 Colossal B+
35. 4/24 Free Fire B-
36. 5/2 The Lost City of Z B
37. 5/5 Get Out A- (2nd viewing)
38. 5/7 A Quiet Passion A-
39. 5/9 Their Finest B
40. 5/11 Snatched B
41. 5/14 Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer B+
42. 5/17 The Fifth Element B+ *
43. 5/23 The Lovers C+
44. 5/25 Weirdos B ***
45. 5/27 Tom of Finland B ***
46. 5/27 A Date for Mad Mary B+ ***
47. 5/29 Endless Poetry C+ ***
48. 5/31 Alien Convenant B+
49. 6/1 Wonder Woman B
40. 6/3 Angkor Awakens: A Portrait of Cambodia B
41. 6/4 Chronicles of Hari C+ ***
42. 6/10 My Cousin Rachel B
43. 6/11 The Landing A- ***
44. 6/15 Megan Leavey B-
45. 6/22 Okja B+ **
46. 6/26 The Exception B
47. 6/29 The Wedding Plan B+
48. 7/1 The Beguiled B
49. 7/2 Baby Driver B+
50. 7/8 The Big Sick A
51. 7/9 The Little Hours B
52. 7/10 Maudie A-
53. 7/16 Our Time Will Come B
54. 7/18 War for the Planet of the Apes B
55. 7/23 A Ghost Story B
56. 7/25 Dunkirk B
57. 7/27 Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets C+
58. 7/29 Lady Macbeth B+
59. 7/30 Atomic Blonde B+
60. 8/1 Landline B+
61. 8/4 An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power B
62. 8/6 Detroit A-
63. 8/9 The Dark Tower C+
64. 8/13 Columbus B+
65. 8/14 Step B+
66. 8/23 Logan Lucky A-
67. 8/24 Wind River B+
68. 8/26 Girls Trip B
69. 8/28 Ingrid Goes West B+
70. 9/2 The Trip to Spain B
71. 9/4 Close Encounters of the Third Kind A *
72. 9/11 Home Again B-
73. 9/14 Beach Rats B+
74. 9/19 mother! C-
75. 9/23 The Tiger Hunter B
76. 9/26 Brad's Status B+
77. 10/1 Blade Runner A *
78. 10/3 Battle of the Sexes B+
79. 10/7 Blade Runner 2049 B+
80. 10/10 Victoria & Abdul B
81. 10/13 Blade Runner 2049 B+ (2nd viewing)
82. 10/14 The Foreigner B
83. 10/15 Saturday Church A- ****
84. 10/16 Lucky B+
85. 10/18 Apricot Groves B+ ****
86. 10/20 BPM (Beats Per Minute) A ****
87. 10/22 Geostorm D+
88. 10/23 The Florida Project B+
89. 10/25 Marshall B
90. 10/27 Suspiria C *
91. 10/29 Suburbicon C+
92. 10/30 The Killing of a Sacred Deer B
93. 11/7 Lady Bird A- **
94. 11/11 Loving Vincent B-
95. 11/12 Murder on the Orient Express C+
96. 11/13 My Friend Dahmer B+
97. 11/19 Last Flag Flying B+
98. 11/21 Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri B+
99. 11/26 Coco A-
100. 11/27 Roman J. Israel, Esq. B
101. 12/1 The Disaster Artist B+
102. 12/4 Jane B+
103. 12/13 Darkest Hour B+ **
104. 12/14 Star Wars: The Last Jedi A-
105. 12/16 The Shape of Water C+
104. 12/18 Star Wars: The Last Jedi A- (2nd viewing)
105. 12/22 Call Me By Your Name A
106. 12/23 Downsizing B- *****
107. 12/27 All the Money in the World A-
108. 12/29 Molly's Game B
109. 12/30 I, Tonya A- *****


*Re-issue (no review)
**Advance screening
***SIFF festival screening
****TWIST Seattle Queer Film Festival screening
*****Awards screener

[older best & worst posts]

ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD

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

It's almost too bad Ridley Scott and his cast pulled off one of the most amazing feats of modern cinema, replacing a key part with a new actor and doing eight days of reshoots a month before scheduled release. It practically overshadows how great All the Money in the World actually is.

It may have even made it better. Let's just set aside, for a moment, the politics of Kevin Spacey's massively misguided response to allegations of sexual harassment, which single-handedly may have tanked this movie's chances at the box office if no changes have been made. It's not hard to find photos online of him as J. Paul Getty, having undergone hours of makeup to look like an old man. Shady behavior notwithstanding, Spacey is objectively a very talented actor, and likely played the part well; the makeup job is even decent. But, when compared to how Christopher Plummer actually looks as a real old man in the part, Spacey winds up looking a little ridiculous.

It's a bit of a mystery why Spacey was hired for the part to begin with. Plummer had already been considered for the part but had scheduling conflicts during the original shoot -- but still, surely there are other older working actors who could have fit the bill without having to spend so much time and energy on prosthetics? Ian McKellen, maybe?

Well, Christopher Plummer wound up available after all, when reshoots were decided upon at the last minute -- and thank God for that. All of Spacey's scenes -- and there was a lot -- were re-shot, many of them including Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams, who traveled to shoot on location over Thanksgiving week. These details shouldn't matter to the end result, necessarily; the film truly stands on its own. But it's all the more impressive with the knowledge that so much was done so late in the game so quickly, because such things can derail any film production. In this case, it clearly enhanced it -- all scenes with Christopher Plummer are integrated seamlessly, and the editor in particular, Claire Simpson, should be commended.

All that said, the performances in All the Money in the World deserve more focus than they are getting, what with all this behind the scenes drama taking up the media ink -- which even I am doing right here. Plummer has never been better, here depicting a man who, at the time, was the richest man in the history of the world -- and, essentially, more of a heartless monster than the criminals who kidnapped his grandson.

Even better is Michelle Williams as Getty's ex-daughter-in-law, mother to the kidnapped grandson, John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer -- no relation). Williams has a history of great performances, and this ranks among her best. Without knowing how accurate it was -- how many people actually knew Gail? -- she nails the accent, and truly disappears into the role. More than once I watched her onscreen and marveled at how good her performance was, and that does not happen often.

The story itself, of course, is pretty sensational, and somewhat necessarily gleans over what would have been the lasting trauma to young Paul. This was the grandson of the richest man in the world, kidnapped for ransom, and the man who had the money struck with the tenets of not negotiating until the kidnappers did something pretty horrible to him. This is all public information so it's not exactly secret, but I still won't spoil it. Just be warned: what happens to Paul is depicted onscreen, and it is both brutal and disturbing.

What makes this story the most compelling, however, is that J. Paul Getty's response to and attitude about all this is arguably even more disturbing. Early on, we get a couple of vital flashbacks regarding Gail's divorce from Getty's semi-estrange, drug addict son (Andrew Buchan). The elder Getty can't understand why Gail doesn't want money and only wants full custody of the children -- and his perception of her taking the children from him fuels years of resentment. But this is how unlimited riches warp a person's mind: if he loved his grandchildren so much, why would he be so callous in this situation? They say that blood is thicker than water, but resentment is even thicker.

There is slight disappointment in the way Ridley Scott ends this story -- there is no way the real story ended so tidily and dramatically. Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg), the deal maker Getty hires to find his grandson's kidnappers, winds up playing a key role in getting young Paul Back, with several key characters crossing paths in a chase at the end -- including a particular captor with a developed affection for the boy. Wahlberg plays the part well, but it's all storytelling just a bit too convenient, and honestly his part in particular is ultimately the least consequential.

Regardless, All the Money in the World is riveting from start to finish, filled with suspense and intrigue, stunningly well put together for something that had to be taken apart and put back together again in such short order. You'd never know it just to see the finished film itself, which is executed with truly rare finesse.

Standing up to scrutiny: Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg assist in great achievement.

Standing up to scrutiny: Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg assist in great achievement.

Overall: A-

DOWNSIZING

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

Downsizing is pleasant enough, which in a way is its problem. Director and co-writer Alexander Payne starts with a promising concept: the "downsizing" of the title is the new practice of undergoing a procedure, ostensibly to help the environmental effects of overpopulation, to shrink oneself to just a few inches tall. It's Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves for the intellectual set. Except no one takes this concept and really runs with it -- instead, it gets taken in the least interesting directions imagination.

I suppose movies like The Incredible Shrinking Man or Honey, I Shrunk the Kids already covered the more sensational ideas of being shrunken to a tiny fraction of original size. Perhaps Payne was simply trying to explore uncharted territory here. I can respect that. The story, however, meanders, discarding characters as it moves in new directions without ever regarding them again, in ways that make little sense.

And I'm still a little stuck on how this movie ignores the much more immediate, practical dangers of being only five inches tall. Tackling issues of social justice and pending environmental collapse is all well and good, but what good is a story like this if none of the small people encounter, say, a cat? Or hell -- bugs! Actually, near the end, they do encounter a bug: a caravan of small people riding down a trail to a small-people settlement, the silhouette of a dragonfly seen through a giant leaf overhead. This plays like one of many examples of the wonderment that would come with this experience. All I could think was: what might  dragonfly actually do with people five inches tall? A dragonfly itself can be as much as four inches in length -- 80% the height of these people!

This movie had a curious marketing campaign, likely because of how muddled its story ultimately turns out to be. In a second wave of trailers, the marketing itself reveals -- so, if you've seen the trailer, this is not a spoiler -- that the main character's wife backs out at the last minute. This is Paul and Audrey, played by Matt Damon and Kristin Wiig, the latter of whom is criminally underused in the end. And her backing out strikes me as a mite unrealistic on its own: would they really never notify the husband if the wife backs out, when they did everything on the same time table up to that point?

I have to wonder if this script might have been better, or at least more tightly polished, when the cast actually read it. This movie features a great many famous people in ultimately bit parts: Neil Patrick Harris and Laura Dern as part of a "small person" community presentation; Jason Sudeikis as a friend who helps Paul with his decisions. Margot Martindale is now famous just for being a character actress in countless small parts, but here she's onscreen for all of a few seconds.

As Paul moves on from certain acquaintances, he meets new ones: a neighbor (Christoph Waltz) who proves to be key to his destiny; a Vietnamese dissident (Hong Chau, the best thing in this movie) now working as a cleaning lady.

I hesitate to call Downsizing "boring," because it did keep me engaged -- barely. I spent a lot of time wondering what the point was, really. All the "big issues" this story tackles could easily be part of another story that did not involve shrinking people to five inches tall. Even when I saw the trailers, I kept figuring they were deliberately omitting something more sinister to the story, because of course there had to be. But I did imagine something more interesting, like, say, the danger of getting stepped on by normal sized people. In what world would all these small people be kept so uniformly safe?

The closest to real volatility this movie gets is when a guy at a bar argues that small people are not contributing enough to the economy and therefore should only be worth one fifth of a vote. That is to say, Downsizing is relatively inoffensive, the potentially problematic nature of Paul and Ngoc Lan Tran's relationship notwithstanding -- it gets uncomfortably close to "white savior" territory, although to be fair Paul turns out to be kind of a fuckup. It's also not nearly as compelling as it should be.

The concept itself is most compelling, indeed, and that's what holds the interest in the beginning, as the world is introduced to this procedure. The story then steadily heads toward more specific narrative threads, which break off in threads with little cohesion. Why would anyone find all this talk about comparative funds interesting? You won't finish this movie regretting having seen it, necessarily, but neither are you going to be thinking about it much the next day. It's a pretty wasted opportunity when such a unique concept is turned into something forgettable.

Oh, who cares about obvious hazards? Let's talk about money!

Oh, who cares about obvious hazards? Let's talk about money!

Overall: B-

CALL ME BY YOUR NAME

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

One might call this the anti-Brokeback Mountain. I mean that as a compliment to both that movie and this; both are excellent, but both are largely reflective of the times of their release. It's been twelve years now since that seminal tragic romance, and here, with Call Me By Your Name, we get a romance, between men, that has no tragedy at all. This is a love to be celebrated, to be regarded with joy. There is some sadness, but it's only the same kind of circumstance that could affect any couple of people who fall in love.

That said, one of the many things to love about this film by director Luca Guadagnino (A Bigger Splash) is that it still acknowledges the challenges facing young gay men in the early eighties -- it just doesn't dwell on them. Seventeen-year-old Elio (Timothée Chalamet, a standout) lives in northern Italy with his progressive professor parents, pretty well free of the typical American socializations of young men. Visiting twenty-something college student Oliver (Armie Hammer), however, more than once acknowledges how his parents would react poorly to their relationship.

Relatively early on, Oliver even says, "We haven't done anything to be ashamed of," the implication being that only if they did anything sexual would that be the case. But then romance does blossom between them, and still neither of them can bring themselves to feel shame. It seems it doesn't even seem to occur to them.

It takes a while even to get to this point, as much time is spent on Elio and Oliver simply becoming friends at first. Upon meeting, Elio isn't even sure he likes Oliver. Guadagnino takes his time here to such a degree that, at first, I began to wonder what the big deal was about this movie. There's nothing wrong with it, sure, but where is this going? It's pleasant enough, but hardly earth-shattering.

It turns out that's precisely the point: Call Me By Your Name contains no emotional cataclysms. It merely draws you in, slowly and confidently, until you just want to wrap yourself in its sweetness, its simple purity. There is a soothing steadiness to its overall tone, and there is sadness in just having the story end.

And although the story is very much about Elio and Oliver, and their connection is genuinely moving, nothing in this movie moved me more than the relationship between Elio and his father, played with a unique level of compassion by Michael Stuhlbarg. Oh, if only every young gay man could have a father as understanding and deeply empathetic as Elio's! This guy's existence almost seems like a fairy tale, but Stuhlbarg grounds him, makes him believable. He and his son just might have something in common.

Unfortunately, there is a couple of somewhat salacious elements to Call Me By Your Name's reputation, and I suppose I should address them. Yes, a certain thing, which I presume is unprecedented in cinema, is done to a peach. Believe it or not the whole sequence, while a tad comical, is surprisingly tasteful. And then, of course, there is the age discrepancy between Elio and Oliver, one of them technically underage. But anyone trying to use that to discredit this film is missing the point about our current cultural discussion about consent -- Elio and Oliver's relationship is believably, plausibly equitable. Neither of them is taken advantage of.

Indeed, their budding romance takes so much time, and there are subtle signals in the beginning, they likely will enrich the film upon multiple viewings. Therein lies the answer to where the story is going. It's going someplace new, at least for American mainstream cinema -- somewhere beautiful, and lovely, and deeply affecting.

Are Elio and Oliver gay? They both start off having experiences with young women. Some have argued that a movie like this should be characterized as bisexual rather than gay, but this movie is clearly sidestepping any such politicizing. Its answer seems to be another question: does it matter? These two are as surprised as anyone that they fall in love with each other. I did feel bad for the women enamored with them, though -- they represent all too many women who have longed for men looking for what they cannot provide.

Call Me By Your Name is a love story, pure and simple, but of a kind some of us have long wished to see more of. Even the practice described by the title, which seems on its face to be rather odd, plays sensibly in context. As does every minor event in this film. That's what this is: a series of minor events, which, when taken together, add up to something wonderful and true. So it goes with any of us who fall in love with another person who is decent and good -- the very attributes that make it easy to fall in love with this film.

Hey, 1983 -- 2017 called, to say "A peach is a little on the nose, isn't it?"

Hey, 1983 -- 2017 called, to say "A peach is a little on the nose, isn't it?"

Overall: A

THE SHAPE OF WATER

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

What. Wait -- what?

Okay, some of this should not exactly come as a shock. The trailers made it pretty clear that The Shape of Water involves an intimate relationship, possibly even a romantic one, between Elisa (Sally Hawkins) and what the credits list as "Amphibian Man" (Doug Jones -- not the one that just won the senate seat in Alabama, for the record). What I wasn't prepared for was the extent, the physicality, of that intimacy. I'm having a little difficulty getting past it.

Sure, this is a fanciful and pretty dark world characteristic of director Guillermo de Toro. But Elisa, a cleaning lady in the government research facility housing this creature they consistently call "the asset," forges an unnatural bond with the thing. I could almost get past that under the right circumstances of storytelling, actually. But Elisa actually discusses this intimacy Zelda, with her best friend from work (Octavia Spencer, always a delight) -- and somehow, Zelda never says, "Elisa, you're fucking a fish!" Instead she learns how the thing's penis comes out of hiding. I'm not kidding.

Maybe I'm just being closed-minded. I'll freely admit that. It's very, very rare, but once in a blue moon, a movie everyone else seems to love comes along and I just can't get on board. The same thing happened with Pixar's Ratatoulle -- cartoon or not, I don't want to see rats, no matter how cute they are, running a restaurant kitchen. Yuck! So they ran themselves through the dishwasher. They're still rats.

And so it is with The Shape of Water -- it's still a fish-man. And an uncomfortably humanoid fish-man, at that: it's basically a man with scales and fins and webbed feet. The outfit is very form-fitting for the actor who portrays him, and I'm just not used to thinking a fish's ass isn't half bad looking.

I'm usually all for being challenged by a film, if it does it in the right way. I'm even good with being made uncomfortable, if there is good reason for it. I just can't bring myself to come up with any truly good reason for the story in The Shape of Water to be told. Sure, I could offer up reasons to see it regardless, most of all the performances -- Sally Hawkins in particular gives an excellent performance as a mute woman overcome with empathy for a mistreated creature.

Then again, perhaps you should also be warned that Elisa is weirdly horny from the beginning. She jerks off in the bathtub every morning and even sets a timer to it -- an egg timer, by the way: she also loves to eat hard boiled eggs and shares them with her beloved Amphibian Man. Lots of fertility symbolism, I suppose. This is the most fucked up Easter ever imagined.

Elisa has a lovely gay friend who lives in her building, Giles, played by Richard Jenkins -- another actor who is always a welcome presence. Maybe these actors just know something I don't, and can see some intrinsic value in this script that I can't. The Shape of Water would easily fall flat without the likes of these actors elevating the otherwise mystifying material.

"Forbidden love," a timeless trope, is one thing. In this case, all I can think of is how amphibian sex gives "slippery slope" new meaning. This isn't a boy and a girl from rival families. It's literal bestiality. The government program boss played effectively by Michael Shannon is clearly meant to be seen as the villain, but I'm kind of on his side on this one. "That thing is an affront," he says. He's right!

I'll give The Shape of Water this much: it certainly is never boring. This truly is a movie all its own. I couldn't even tell you what genre it's supposed to be -- it's set in a sort of alternate-universe fifties, full of whimsical flourishes, and treats sex between members of different species with a "love makes a family" vibe. It certainly feels like a Guillermo del Toro movie. Honestly, most fans of del Toro's, or of twisted dark fantasies, will probably love it. With what I feel are legitimate reasons, however, I'm just not feeling it.

the shape of water.jpg

Overall: C+

STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI

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

Here is a classic example of a movie that is critic-proof. No one reading this review is going to decide whether or not to see Star Wars: The Last Jedi based on what I say about it. In all probability, anyone reading this will by and large have waited until after seeing the film, just to see how well aligned my point of view is to theirs. Some may even be part of the Star Wars Nerd Army, waiting to pounce on any criticisms I may have. And I do have a few, in spite of my immediate contention that The Last Jedi is easily the best of the new Star Wars films.

The Last Jedi locks us in, in a way The Force Awakens could only offer in a somewhat shaky promise: the re-ignition of a franchise many felt taken in the wrong direction by George Lucas’s ridiculously self-indulgent prequels; a return to the grittier, lived-in (as in: not bogged down by CGI) feel of the original trilogy; a thematic connective tissue that linked the characters we originally fell in love with to a new vision of a franchise future with even more exciting characters. The power of that film in its cultural context was undeniable, in spite of its overall plot being basically a retread of A New Hope (with the explosion of what amounted to a third Death Star), but there remained the feeling that the next installment of this new trilogy could be great, or it could be a disaster. It had great potential but offered no reliable promises.

Well, fear not! I don’t have to give away any plot details to tell you that The Last Jedi improves on its predecessor, escapes the clutches of its deeper flaws, and reaffirms Star Wars and its place in modern American mythology in a way The Force Awakens could not. The resulting relief is deepened by the very existence of last year’s stand-alone Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, which was good but had nowhere near impact of the official, episodic installments, and served as a warning about market saturation. Do we really need a Star Wars movie every single year? I remain unconvinced, and the impact of The Last Jedi would be even greater with a longer wait before returning to the Lucasfilm universe. These stand-alone movies are fun but are basically tangents to the broader story arc – and, let’s face it, a tangent is never nearly as compelling as the primary story being told.

I will say that The Last Jedi starts off with dialogue clunky enough to have given me mixed feelings about how the rest of the movie was going to go. Rian Johnson, previously known for the decent but forgettable Looper (2012), proves up to the task as director, but was maybe not the best choice as the sole writer of the script. Then again, let’s be honest with ourselves: what single Star Wars movie has not featured clunky dialogue? One could argue convincingly that it’s part of the package.

Of course, that attitude can be a double-edged sword: millions of fans who grew up loving Star Wars – indeed, the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy alike – will come to this movie completely closed off to seeing its flaws. Minds are made up that the movie will be loved; therefore, it is loved. Who cares what dumb things come out of any characters’ mouths? There’s Princess Leia – excuse me, General Leia – on the screen! There’s Luke Skywalker! And Rey, the best new Star Wars hero – of any gender – since Princess Leia herself! And Finn! And Po! Captain Phasma! Chewbacca! And BB-8 and C-3PO and even R2-D2! It’s so exciting it’s exhausting! And that’s not even the end of the list of exciting characters who turn up -- speaking of which, by the way: what's with the porg haters? They are adorable and fun, and one of this film's many surprises is that these creatures are onscreen just enough, never overused.

Even Kylo Ren – pitch-perfectly portrayed by Adam Driver – gains a deeper meaning in this film. In The Force Awakens he was a petulant child; now he’s a dangerous young man whose emotional instability has greater clarity. No longer is he the villain trying in vain to emulate his idol Darth Vader; for once he’s becoming a villain of his own unique expression – one which, frankly, may be (so far) less iconic, but has greater nuance than Vader ever had.

In any case, once the initial dialogue finally gives way to the immediacy of the story itself, it cannot be understated how satisfying it is to watch the pieces of the story fall into place. And it is precisely the powerful mythology of this franchise that gives it unique weight, the way it can give the viewer chills just to see certain specific characters engage with each other. Battle scenes, particularly between characters wielding lightsabers, are expertly staged with staggeringly well-shot backdrops. The cinematography is epic in scope, with deliberate uses of light and color that make this film stand apart both as a Star Wars film and as a piece of cinematic pop art. The special effects are not groundbreaking – Star Wars has been incapable of that since the early eighties – yet flawlessly executed, using CGI when appropriate but more practical effects when it works better (something the aging George Lucas never understood).

Also: a surprising amount of humor, a welcome element in a pretty dark series of events for our heroes. Minor but effective gags are peppered throughout, although the first example I thought felt slightly out of place in this world – but, it fits with 21st-century American sensibilities. All three trilogies are very much products of their time, and we can’t really begrudge them that.

Finally, perhaps the biggest relief of The Last Jedi is that, after The Force Awakens – as thrilling as it was – was a transparent retread of A New Hope, there was much speculation as to whether The Last Jedi would be a retread of The Empire Strikes Back. It’s not even close. More than once the story seems headed in one direction, and then veers truly unexpectedly – to the point where I actually thought, Well, where are they going to go from here then? To me, this is the greatest compliment I could give it, The Last Jedi’s greatest strength: its element of surprise, of discovery not truly felt since the original trilogy. There is no “great reveal” in the vein of Vader’s “Luke, I am your father!” – but the potential is always there. As such, the key difference between The Force Awakens and this movie is that the former left its fans with cautious optimism about the future of Star Wars, and now we’re left with unbridled excitement.

Feels like home: Luke Skywalker re-enters the Millennium Falcon.

Feels like home: Luke Skywalker re-enters the Millennium Falcon.

Overall: A-

Advance: DARKEST HOUR

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

Gary Oldman has long been impressively chameleonic as an actor, disappearing in roles from Dracula to Zorg in The Fifth Element to Sirius Black in the Harry Potter franchise to Commissioner Gordon in the Christopher Nolan Batman movies – among a great many others. But he has never disappeared quite so completely as he does as Winston Churchill in <i>Darkest Hour</i>, a truly great performance in – well, okay, it’s a very good, if not great, movie.

It’s easy for a performance to get weighed down – so to speak – or distracted by the massive amount of prosthetics Oldman wears here, reportedly weighing half his own weight. This transformation alone, really, should garner <i>Darkest Hour</i> on Oscar for Best Makeup, because from the moment he appears on the screen, you don’t even realize you’re looking at Gary Oldman. Granted, Churchill was Britain’s Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955 (this movie focuses on the first stretch), and he died in 1965, so I’m not sure it means much for me to say I really felt like I was looking at Winston Churchill. And some could argue quite easily that John Lithgow did a better job of portraying him in the Netflix series The Crown in its first season last year – he certainly had better enunciation in his delivery. A quick search for the audio of any Winston Churchill speech, however, quickly reveals that Oldman’s is the more realistic one, adding one more element to the astonishing way in which this consummate actor completely transcends any limitations put on him by this production.

That is to say, Gary Oldman alone makes Darkest Hour essential viewing, even if the movie overall is imperfect. I still use the word “imperfect” with some hesitation, because it is also thoroughly entertaining from the start, mesmerizing from the opening frame, and its contrivances play on the audience’s emotions in all the ways they come to the movies specifically for. Getting to the multiple layers of critical appraisal is one thing, but if you enjoy historical biopics in general, movies made for adults, then this is definitely for you.

Now, to call Darkest Hour “Oscar Bait” is both on the nose and an understatement. It’s a period piece set in Britain with a famous actor in the lead giving a stellar performance – anyone with an eye on the coming Oscar race quite rightly places Gary Oldman as the current front runner for Best Actor. It’s early enough, though, that his momentum could still falter, although given the current slate of competitors it seems unlikely. I feel so strongly about this other category that I’ll mention it again, though: this movie deserves Best Makeup. Specifically, Kazuhiro Tsuji as Gary Oldman’s prostethic makeup and hair designer.

There are other actors in this movie, of course, and the two other standouts are women: Kristin Scott Thomas as Clementine Churchill (although her apparent role of “woman who keeps her powerful husband grounded” seems slightly problematic); and Lily James (seen earlier this year in Baby Driver) as Elizabeth Layton, Churchill’s personal secretary. There’s also Ben Mendelsohn (now perhaps best known as the Imperial Commander Orson Krennic in last year’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story) as the only slightly stuttering King George VI. The presentation of the initially strained relationship between Britain’s king at the time and its new Prime Minister Churchill is much more subtle than the movie is overall, making it one of its most compelling relationships.

And, indeed, most of the rest of Darkest Hour, which details the first couple of weeks after Churchill first became Prime Minister, engages little with subtlety. For a movie of this sort, however, it strikes all the right notes for giving its audience what it wants; few people who aren’t professional critics but have an interest are going to have any complaints. And to be sure, this movie, as directed by Joe Wright (Pride & Prejudice, Atonement), looks at a rather fascinating time in history – at the very beginning of World War II, when the U.S. was studiously trying to remain neutral, honestly a rather shameful (among many) points in U.S. history. A brief scene can say a lot, such as when Churchill makes a phone call to U.S. President Franklin, practically begging for assistance, and getting none.

Darkest Hour certainly provides a lot of uncomfortable things to consider in retrospect. The focus of this story is on Churchill’s ultimate decision whether or not to engage in peace negotiations with Hitler, something he resists with all his might from the beginning. It seems obvious in retrospect that he clearly made the right decision to fight rather than acquiesce to anything Hitler wanted, but the uncomfortable truth is that no one knew this for certain in 1940 – and how do we gauge any similar decisions that might be made by world leaders today? Churchill is at times characterized here as a guy who seems to many like a babbling lunatic, bringing uncomfortable visions of the current American president. Churchill, by contrast, came down on the side of hard, if brutal, logic in the end – a man of integrity in the face of a world crisis, an important distinction.

It was, of course, Britain’s handling of the Dunkirk situation that brought things around for them from the start. One has to wonder what the deal is with the sort of “Dunkirk renaissance” that occurred in 2016 – this is the third movie this year whose story is either all about or hinges on the Dunkirk evacuation. Their Finest, about the making of a British movie about the Dunkirk evacuation starring an American actor in an attempt to persuade the U.S. to get involved, was released in May. Christopher Nolan’s much-talked about Dunkirk, all of its action set in the thick of it, came out in July. Darkest Hour, which features the leaders in Britain making the decisions that set the evacuation in motion – most notably calling on the civilian boats to cross the English Channel to assist – is the best of these three films, doing the best at delivering what it promises. (Incidentally, Joe Wright’s own Atonement had its own sequence set in the thick of the Dunkirk evacuation, which multiple people have said was far more realistic than the entirety of Christopher Nolan’s film.)

World War II is so ingrained in our pop culture psyches, from entertainment alone, it’s easy to oversimplify what a cataclysmic time it was – and the difficulty of the decisions the people in charge had to make. Gary Oldman plays Winston Churchill as a bit of a blowhard, but a man of conscience. How do you live with sacrificing four thousand soldiers in order to save three hundred thousand? It’s cold blooded math, and there is merit to his argument that great nations that fall rise again, but those that willingly subjugate themselves do not. One of Darkest Hour’s many rather contrived scenes involves Churchill shocking the public by taking his first-ever ride on a London Underground train, to ask random citizens their opinion: would they fight the Nazis even when the odds are stacked against them? You can imagine how they all answer – but, for this movie’s purposes, it does the trick, and quickly gets to the heart of Britain’s national mood at the time. “Never surrender” sounds like a cliché now, but in the context of 1940 Britain, it was a notion that had real weight, and as such this movie does too.

Is that Gary Oldman or Winston Churchill himself? I can't tell!

Is that Gary Oldman or Winston Churchill himself? I can't tell!

Overall: B+

JANE

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

Jane Goodall is a woman of extraordinary historical significance, a key element in mankind's understanding of chimpanzees, ourselves, and how the two relate. It seems this woman's amazing life continues unabated: Jane is a documentary filled with early 1960s footage of her very first research, thought to have been lost -- until 2014.

To say it's fascinating to see this footage from the vantage point of the 21st century is an understatement, and writer-director Brett Morgen (Cobain: Montage of Heck; The Kid Stays in the Picture) curiously sidesteps some of the more obvious questions -- perhaps most notably the question of how chimps might have been affected by the mere act of being studied. This was the first time chimpanzees were observed in the wild; Goodall was initially chosen for the project precisely because she had no scientific training at the time; for some time, she interacted with them directly. And this was thought to be a study of how chimpanzees behave in the wild.

That said, this is still a woman who made observations never made before, which shook the worldwide scientific community. And here, in Jane, we see plenty of the footage first demonstrating these observations. For instance, a primate other than a human fashioning and using tools.

Nothing is said of the quality of the film stock discovered in 2014. It is simply presented here, often with plainly creative editing to enhance dramatic effect -- that part is a minor disappointment, when so much of the footage can clearly speak for itself. Most of it is of stunning quality for something thought lost since the sixties, thanks to the process of remastering.

I must mention my one major complaint, which is the original score by Philip Glass, usually an indispensable composer. And perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, but I found this score to be pointlessly obtrusive and distracting, full of dramatic crescendos entirely unneeded. Unless it's a musical, I don't usually grade a film's music or score as its own element, mostly because I have so little musical knowledge or insight. That said, it could be argued that the score is very much an aspect of sound editing, and therefore the editing overall -- which is why that gets the lowest grade here. I stand by the solid B, as the story this film tells is compelling from beginning to end. But it is slightly sullied by this score.

Otherwise, Jane is a documentary more than worthy of being seen. Morgen interviews a present-day Goodall, who reminisces about her early research on chimpanzees, how they informed her own outlook on life, and how becoming a mother herself helped her understand the instincts of the mother she observed mating and then birthing in the wild. We see a large amount of related footage, including a whole lot of a young Goodall herself.

We see footage of the era when she met her first  husband, wildlife photographer Hugo van Lawick, and the son she raised for the first three years of his life in Gambia, around the chimpanzees she was studying. Knowing what more we know now, a lot of this is stunning -- early on we hear Brett Morgen ask from behind the camera about how chimps were capable of tearing their faces off. Goodall just says matter-of-factly that there was no wildlife research on these animals at the time: they just didn't know. So, she lived among them, after months became accepted by them, and ultimately found herself disheartened to become the person who discovered they can be just as brutal in primitive warfare as human beings can.

A lot of these discoveries are common knowledge now, and it almost seems quaint to hear about those who had no clue. It's incredible, though, to hear -- and see -- the story of those who made these discoveries and first-time observations. It's too bad Goodall was the only one interviewed in the present day; van Lawick passed away at the age of 65 in 2002, but some insights from their son, who she called Grub, could have been invaluable. Instead we only get footage of him as a toddler, and a brief bit of footage as a young man with his father. At one point Goodall notes that Grub "always hated chimpanzees." That seems like something ripe for exploration, but here that's both the start and the end of it.

Jane Goodall's life is rife with amazing stories, and Jane is but one, a slice rather than anything approaching true biography. That said, so much of the footage is jaw dropping, you can never look away from this movie.

An unconventional relationship indeed: Jane Goodall and one of her many unprecedented subjects.

An unconventional relationship indeed: Jane Goodall and one of her many unprecedented subjects.

Overall: B+