UNCUT GEMS

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

There’s a Venn diagram of basketball fans and cinema fans, maybe also Adam Sandler fans, who are really going to love Uncut Gems. This film, by Bennie Safdie and Josh Safdie, certainly found a unique niche: it’s about a jeweler with a serious gambling problem (Sandler), and also features Boston Celtics player Kevin Garnett in a key supporting part . . . as himself.

It may be that this movie just isn’t for me. I don’t even know what being a “power forward” means. Strangely, as time passes and I let it sink in, it becomes clearer to me how well constructed Uncut Gems really is. That doesn’t mean I have to be a huge fan of it. There’s almost too much tension, the cinematography is competent but too over-saturated for my taste, and there’s a lot of screaming.

That may be why Adam Sandler was perfect for this movie. That guy has been a professional screamer for decades, and I really never liked him. Except that, in the 2002 P.T. Anderson masterpiece Punch-Drunk Love, he proved that in the hands of the right director, Sandler actually can be an incredible dramatic actor. Does he just do one serious movie truly worthy of consideration within the span of each decade, or what?

He is indeed well used here. We meet Howard Ratner during a colonoscopy, of all things, after a prelude depicting the theft of gems in mines of Ethiopia. The opening titles are very cool, if a bit odd in the end: they depict a view of the universe within those gems, until it dissolves into the inner lining of Howard’s colon. From there, Howard spends the vast majority of the story getting himself into deeper and deeper shit, using money he should be using to pay standing debts to place even more gambling bets. This guy can’t help himself, not even after threatening goons hang him upside down out a high window.

Are you wondering how Kevin Garnett comes into play? Well, he ultimately is a sort of patron of Howard’s jewelry establishment, and he develops a superstitious attachment to the stone full of gems from Ethiopia, which Howard has procured through shady means and is convinced it is worth a lot more than it probably really is. I can imagine basketball fans, and particularly fans of Kevin Garnett, will regard this element of the story as a kick in the pants.

So much focus is put on basketball in play, because Howard places bets on it, that my own personal interest wanes. I might even go so far as to say that if basketball bores you, much of this movie will as well. On the other hand, the Safdie Brothers effectively transcend the whole basketball thing with this movie, because that is just part of the context, in this story about a man who cannot stop gambling, even in the face of personal ruin.

There are other things to love on this movie, such as the obviousness of Howard’s gambling problem, but no character ever discusses it directly, or says anything so obvious as “You have a problem.” Not even Howard’s wife (a nearly unrecognizable Idina Menzel), or his young mistress (Julia Fox). It is made clear that Howard and Dinah are preparing to tell the kids they will be separating. We can already see plainly why.

Sandler’s Jewish heritage has always been a key part of his persona, and it plays heavily here as well, with Howard being from a large, Jewish family. Judd Hirsch plays his father; Eric Bogosian is Howard’s brother-in-law (evidently husband to one of his sisters, I think), and also one of the men resorting to threats to procure gambling debts. In addition to Garnett, The Weeknd also plays himself, as a talented coke head, in a much smaller part. There is a scene in which he performs. I haven’t even gotten to LaKeith Stanfield, seen in last year’s Sorry to Bother You as well as this year’s Knives Out, in another key part as one of Kevin Garnett’s associates.

Which is to say, the acting is pretty great across the board in Uncut Gems. Even Kevin Garnett, in his feature film debut, holds his own. There’s something to be said for forging a new path in storytelling, and this movie certainly does that, which earns it my respect. The same goes for how it ends, which is somehow both a shock and totally unsurprising. I have to commend a movie that manages to impress me even after it spends far more time on basketball play than I am ever interested in watching.

Insert “diamond in the rough” metaphor here.

Overall: B+

Cinema 2019: Best & Worst

Below are the ten most satisfying and memorable films I saw in 2019: 10. Little Women A-

As literary adaptations go, this one is about as close to perfect as you can hope for. Many such adaptations work far better as TV series, giving the much more expansive stories the space to breathe, and Little Women, in the right hands, would likely have been no excepton. If it must be a feature film, however, you really can't do any better than putting it in Greta Gerwig's assured hands, with which she seamlessly integrates author Louisa May Alcott's own life, and known wishes for her own book. Given how autobiographical the book was, this is perfectly appropriate, and makes for sly storytelling with unique finesse, offering a picture of not just life for women in the midnineteenth century, but of both how far they have come and how little things have changed. It doesn't hurt that the perfectly cast performances are all delightful.

What I said then: Greta Gerwig’s Little Women is a rich text unto itself, a delightful time capsule of 2019 and how we regard ourselves in the context of looking back at 1869. It has layers that are all its own, ripe for discovery. 9. Giant Little Ones A-

A film of subtle and deceptive simplicity which gradually reveals itself to have great impact. Giant Little Ones is that rare "queer film" that never bothers to define its queerness: it's just about the ramifications of a minor sex act between two teenage boys who have been best friends since they were little, how it gets turned into rumor among their peers, and what that means for them, and for us as viewers. Who initiated things becomes a key plot point tied inextricably with true friendship in the fact of blame and misinformation, rendering this that rare film that depicts teenagers with an innate understanding of integrity.

What I said then: The greatness of Giant Little Ones is in its concurrent uniqueness and absolute relatability to contemporary audiences. This movie contains no cliché moments, no emotional “coming out” scenes; in fact, it’s relatively pointed in its refusal to define any character’s sexuality. Within the dialogue comes this great pearl of wisdom: “It sounds like you had a sexual experience with someone you really loved. It may be as simple as that.”
8. Ford v Ferrari A-

Trust me, I can relate to the many of you when you look at this and think, A movie about race car driving? Really? Yes, really! I was skeptical at first as well, and was convinced to give it a try after its shockingly high critical praise, and still this movie exceeded my expectations. It's about more than just racing, but it must be said that the racing sequences are still a big reason to see it: expertly shot and edited, always thrilling to watch. Even at 152 minutes in length, this thoroughly entertaining movie just flies by, thanks inlarge part to electric performances by both Matt Damon and Christian Bale. It should also be noted that, witout exception, everyone who saw this movie after I told them they should has told me I was right. Ford v Ferrari has done all right at the box office but should have been a smash: it's the truly rare movie that I can happily recommend to absolutely anyone who asks what good movies I have seen lately, regardless of sociopolitical background. This is old-school storytelling with a modern lens (literally: it's so well shot!), this year's one movie that really is for everyone.

What I said then: The extraordinary thing about Ford v Ferrari is that I really have nothing to criticize it for. It may not quite be a masterpiece of cinema, but it sure does hold up as near-perfect movie entertainment. 7. Wild Rose A-

This might be the most underrated, criminally ignored movie of the year. What's wrong with you people, get your shit together! If you like movies about singers, you need to drop everything and watch this one. Even if, like me, you're not super into country music. This unparalleled story of a woman who travels from her native Glasgow to pursue her dream of being a country singer in Nashville will lift your spirits, with its music as well as its performances, like you would never expect.

What I said then: This movie is better than Rocketman, certainly better than Bohemian Rhapsody, arguably even better than A Star Is Born. The travesty is that Wild Rose flies under the radar compared to those films — so far under the radar, in fact, in effect there is no radar at all. And this one is better executed, more deeply emotionally affecting, than all three of those others put together. 6. Luce A-

A counterpoint to Ford v Ferrari, I suppose: Luce is dense, complicated, and difficult, posing questions with no easy answers. If you're looking for a challenge as someone with intellectual curiosity, look no further than this film, about an Eritrean-born high school student (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) adopted by a white couple (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) who may or may not be making veiled threats against his history teach (Octavia Spencer). It plays largely like a mystery, and one that will creep under your skin, keeping you thinking for some time,    

What I said then: It’s a provocative exploration of the ways life is unavoidably complicated, often unfair in surprising ways, and even the smartest people can be tragic victims of circumstance. And, sometimes, who the victims even are, exactly, is open for debate. 5. The Reports on Sarah and Saleem A-

Films that tap into the prejudices across the divide between Israel and Palestine are nothing new, but this movie is still something different. The man and woman of the title are of each natuonality, both married but having a secret affair with each other, and it snowballs thanks to a lie on a government report—hence the title—that has nothing to do with their affair, but which the suspicious Israelis interpret to be a threat. Yhe Reports on Sarah and Saleem is thus a masterfully constructed story, with all of its many pieces clicking into place with icreasingly satisfying precision.

What I said then: I would argue The Reports on Sarah and Saleem has a far more feminist bent to it than you’re ever likely to find in any other story like this. The two women here are the strongest characters, with the most dimension. Best of all, [director] Muayad Alayan does not pass judgment on any of these characters, the women or the men — one of each potentially seen, depending on the point of view of the observer, as a victim and as a criminal. 4. Apollo 11 A

2019 has turned out to be a banner year for phenomenal documentary films—the genera accounts for three of the top four movies I saw this year. Apollo 11 was the first of them that I saw, and it is astonishing on ever level: the kind of archival foodtage found that had never been seen before, and the achievement itself, having been in a pre-digital, analog world. Fifty years on, it's easy to take all this for granted, but Apollo 11 illustrates how the event impacted and changed the world in a way unlike anything else I had ever seen. Just imagine any time you felt like your mind was being blown, and then put yourself in the shoes of anyone alive on the planet on July 20, 1969. This film comes the closest to doing that for you, and even if you were already in awe of the very idea of what they did, it will still change your perspective.

What I said then: Todd Douglas Miller, who also did the editing, lets all the footage simply speak for itself. It’s a document of a particular moment in time, with unparalleled historic import, condensed down to 93 minutes. There is not a single moment wasted, not a lull to be found. This jaw-dropping feat of humanity is enough on its own to be mesmerizing from beginning to end — with particularly thrilling moments, of course: the successful rocket launch; the literal landing on the moon; the safe return to Earth eight days later. 3. Toni Morrison: The Pieces I Am A

It may be cliché to call any person a legend, but Tori Morrison earns the title—and what tragic irony that I thought of her as a living legend when I watched this film in July, and then she passed away three weeks later. Thankully, Morrison lives on in her immportal works of vial American literature. But also, she lives on in this truly awe-inspiring, revelatory documentary about her and her life, told largely in her own words, both in recent interviews for this film and in archival interviews spanning decades. This film will make you wish you could have known her, and what greater accomplishment is there than that?

What I said then: Morrison, having sat down for multiple long interviews for this film, proves to be a dynamic screen presence. She only has to sit and speak, and she commands attention, all confidence, sincerity and warmth in equal measure, someone quick to express joy while at the same time capable of tapping into deep wells of pain. This is a woman who lacks humility only because she doesn’t need it. There is no particular arrogance in her demeanor; she simply sits comfortably in the knowledge of her skill and talent. 2. The Third Wife A

The one and only narrative feature film I saw this year that, onscreen at least, I would call flawless: the writing, the acting, the editing, the cinematography, the direction: not one false move among them. You may have noticed I tend to be most impressed by well-ecuted stories with a feminist bent, and The Third Wife is no exception, about a 14-year-old married off to a wealthy landowner in 19th century rural Vietnam. It is very specific to a time and place, one I had never seen represented onscreen before, and yet, it still shows that when it comes to patriarchy, it's been the same shit the world over throughout history. The casting of a 13-year-old actor who French kisses one of the other two wives is problematic at best, and I do feel I would be remiss in not mentioning it. That said, when judging all that ended up within every frame of this film, no other narrative feature film in 2019 matches it in its quiet, provocative quality.

What I said then: I have no idea how much leeway to give cultural differences here. If nothing else, there is some comfort in the director having been a woman, with a clear vision of the story she was telling and an intricate understanding of the sexual politics involved. How appropriate was Nguyen Phuong Tra My for this part, then? That’s hard to say. I’m choosing to separate that knowledge from the final product onscreen, which is sublime in its presentation. 1. Honeyland A

This movie is so amazing, and uniquely so, it holds the distinction of being the first year's best movie I have ever chosen that was a documentary. It's so amazing, in fact, such an impressive feat of technical cinematic achievement, I could tell you it was actually a narrative feature film and you would be none the wiser. The story is simple: a lone woman beekeeper in rural Macedonia, outside its capitol city of Skopje, has her livelihood threatened by a family who sets up nearby with their own beekeeping operation. Hatidze is so generous and pure of heart, she keeps offering advice on keeping their business sustainable, which they consistently ignore, long after she should have stopped. One of the many impressive things about this is how it's edited down to the perfect length of 90 minutes, from three years' worth of time spent on principal photography. The fimmakers were simply observers, recording a life, and a way of life, without conducting actual interviews. This is why it feels so much more like a narrative film than your typical documentay—because they had enough footage from which to fashion such a narrative. The georgeous cinematography and stunning scenery are added bonuses, making an indeiible story even better with its visual impact. It's movies like this that make me grateful cinema exists at all.

What I said then: Honeyland is a triumph of editing, of cinematography, of will, of perseverance, of humanity. Five Worst -- or the worst of those I saw 5. Captive State C

A grand "fake-out" sci-fi movie with so many plot holes they form a giant, gapig pit of tediousness. I'd try to explain both the premise and the plot, except that neiher makes sense. There are aliens. They've taken over all the major cities. This story is set in "occupied" Chicago. Everything else you learn about this incomprehensible movie brings more questions than answers, but you're so bored by the time the movie is over, you don't care what the answers are annyway.

What I said then: Is it possible half the people who saw this movie liked it on some level just because they have no taste? Or brains? 4. Little C

You can imagine the pitch meeting on this one: "An inverted 'black Big,' except now the protagonist is a girl!" Not even the reliably genial Issa Rae can save this total mess of a movie, which has no real understanding of what it's like to be a child. Or how to write a script that makes any sense. The strangest thing about this movie is that it's packed with great actors, who have no hope of saving this sinking ship of a movie. Inept at every turn, this is a movie that could have been clever and fun but just lands on dumb.

What I said then: Nothing in Little makes any sense. It has occasionally enjoyable moments, and surely plenty of people will enjoy it far more than I did. That doesn’t change how fundamentally dumb it is. 3. The Wandering Earth C-

The next time you think you might see a foreign film that also happens to be a disaster movie, don't do it! Okay, I suppose that's unfair; the 2015 Norwegian film The Wave was actually pretty good. The Wandering Earth, on the other hand, is basically China's answer to The Core crossed with Geostorm. Which is to say, this movie about moving the Earth to a new star system thanks to our sun dying out is a steaming pile of garbage.

What I said then: This movie ... has the distinction of being easily the stupidest thing I have watched in at least two years. 2. Godzilla: King of the Monsters C-

But then, Godzilla: King of the Monsters saw how terrible The Wandering Earth was and said, "Hold my beer." This one is a special effects extravaganza with such bad lighting, you can't decipher the incomprehensible chaos even on a visual level. This movie is so idiotic, it gives big, dumb blockbusters a bad name. I even knew this one would be shit before I even went to see it, so I suppose I have only myself to blame.

What I said then: This movie has not one redeeming quality. The closest it gets is that some parts of it are merely average — the acting, for instance — rather than terrible. 1. Cats C-

I gave three movies in 2019 a C-minus, those three being the worst movies I saw all year. What barely edges Cats out as the worst of them all is how many times I looked at the screen in utter bafflement and thought to myself, What the fuck? Strangely, that is the only emotion Cats managed to elicit out of me, which is honestly its greatest sin: it may have neen resentment and anger, but at least The Wandering Earth and Godzilla: King of the Monsters actually made me feel something. Cats is so much more dull and boring than anything this nightmarish in appearance should even be capable of being. The bizarre visuals of Ken-Doll-crotch humanoid cats with CGI fur is the only thing that will keep you awake.

What I said then: This is ... the stuff of nightmares, the stuff that makes you imagine a bad trip after taking acid. Is that what the effects team did before they set about their work?
Complete 2019 film log: 1. 1/4 Shoplifters B
2. 1/5 Mary Poppins Returns B (2nd viewing)
3. 1/6 Mary, Queen of Scots B
4. 1/8 Ben Is Back B
5. 1/14 Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse A- (2nd viewing)
6. 1/19 Destroyer B
7. 1/21 Cold War B+
8. 1/26 Stan & Ollie B
9. 2/1 They Shall Not Grow Old B+
10. 2/7 What Men Want B-
11. 2/9 The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part B
12. 2/12 Capernaum B+
13. 2/14 Isn't It Romantic B
14. 2/15 2019 Oscar Nominated Shorts: Animation B
15. 2/17 2019 Oscar Nominated Shorts: Live Action B
16. 2/19 2019 Oscar Nominated Shorts: Documentary B+
17. 2/25 Arctic B+
18. 2/27 Fighting with My Family B+
19. 3/3 The Wandering Earth C-
20. 3/5 Sharkwater Extinction B
21. 3/12 Captain Marvel B
22. 3/13 Apollo 11 A
23. 3/16 Captain Marvel B (2nd viewing)
24. 3/18 Giant Little Ones A-
25. 3/20 Captive State C
26. 3/22 Us B+
27. 3/24 Gloria Bell B+
28. 3/31 Dumbo B-
29. 4/2 Hotel Mumbai B+
30. 4/6 Shazam! B
31. 4/15 Amazing Grace B+
32. 4/17 Little C
33. 4/18 Penguins B+
34. 4/23 High Life C+
35. 4/25 Hail Satan? B
36. 5/4 Long Shot B
37. 5/6 Her Smell B
38. 5/8 Avengers: Endgame C+
39. 5/17 Good Kisser B+ *
40. 5/17 Pokémon Detective Pikachu B
41. 5/19 Pachamama B+ *
42. 5/21 John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum B
43. 5/23 Banana Split B+ *
44. 5/24 Trixie Mattel: Moving Parts B+ *
45. 5/25 Enormous: The Gorge Story B *
46. 5/27 Booksmart B+
47. 6/4 Troop Zero B *
48. 6/5 The Long Haul: The Story of the Buckaroos B+ *
49. 6/8 Rocketman B+
50. 6/11 Godzilla: King of the Monsters C-
51. 6/13 Late Night B+
52. 6/20 Toy Story 4 B+
53. 6/23 The Last Black Man in San Francisco A-
54. 7/6 Midsommar B+
55. 7/10 Yesterday B-
56. 7/13 Wild Rose A-
57. 7/14 Halston B-
58. 7/15 Toni Morrison: The Pieces I Am A
59. 7/19 The Farewell B+
60. 7/21 Diamantino C+
61. 7/23 The Lion King A-
62. 7/25 Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood B
63. 7/27 The Third Wife A
64. 7/28 Sword of Trust B+
65. 7/31 Kathy Griffin: A Hell of a Story B-
66. 8/6 Crawl B+
67. 8/10 The Kitchen B-
68. 8/14 The Reports on Sarah and Saleem A-
69. 8/17 Where'd You Go, Burnadette B-
70. 8/20 Ready or Not B+
71. 8/21 Honeyland A
72. 8/28 Luce A-
73. 8/29 Mike Wallace Is Here B
74. 9/1 The Nightingale B+
75. 9/2 One Child Nation B
76. 9/5 Blinded by the Light B+
77. 9/9 Brittany Runs a Marathon A-
78. 9/11 Tigers Are Not Afraid B+
79. 9/15 Hustlers B+
80. 9/17 Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice B+
81. 9/18 Downton Abbey B **
82. 9/19 Raise Hell: The Life and Times of Molly Ivins B+
83. 9/22 Ad Astra B
84. 9/25 Official Secrets B+
85. 9/27 Judy B+
86. 9/28 Monos B
87. 10/4 Joker C+
88. 10/5 Chained for Life B-
89. 10/9 Ms. Purple B-
90. 10/11 Lucy in the Sky B-
91. 10/16 The Addams Family C+
92. 10/17 Where's My Roy Cohn? B+
93. 10/19 Dolemite Is My Name B
94. 10/24 Zombieland: Double Tap B-
95. 10/25 Parasite B+
96. 10/29 The Lighthouse B+
97. 11/3 Terminator: Dark Fate B
98. 11/5 Jojo Rabbit B
99. 11/7 Harriet B
100. 11/9 Pain and Glory B+
101. 11/11 Last Christmas B-
102. 11/15 The Irishman B
103. 11/16 Ford v Ferrari A-
104. 11/17 The Woman Who Loves Giraffes B
105. 11/18 The Good Liar B
106. 11/24 A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood A-
107. 11/27 Knives Out B+
108. 11/28 Waves B+
109. 11/30 Honey Boy B+
110. 12/1 Frozen II B+
111. 12/2 Queen & Slim B
112. 12/11 Marriage Story A-
113. 12/12 Dark Waters B
114. 12/19 Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker B
115. 12/20 Cats C-
116. 12/21 Bombshell B+
117. 12/26 Little Women A-
118. 12/28 A Hidden Life B
119. 12/29 Uncut Gems B+ * SIFF festival screening
** Advanced screening

A HIDDEN LIFE

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

You can always tell when you’re watching a Terrence Malick film. Whether it’s his take on Pocahontas in The New World (2005) or the mysterious link between evolution and 1950s parenthood in the baffling Tree of Life (2011), wildly different types of stories are always told in the same visual style: sweeping camera movements within randomly cut shots. They may all be different stories, but it’s always Malick’s world.

A Hidden Life is unusually straightforward storytelling for Terrence Malick, as it happens. Even with the standard sorts of editing and cinematography, the story of passive resistance by one Austrian farmer named Franz Jäggerstätter (August Diehl) during World War II is easy to follow. It’s also long, also typical of Malick’s films: here 174 minutes. That I never found myself bored to sleep is a minor miracle, although I can easily imagine that happening to other viewers. There’s a lot of time spent just observing Franz and his wife, Fani (Valerie Pachner), living their simple live as small village farmers in the Austrian mountains.

That setting is what makes a whole lot of A Hidden Life very pretty to look at. Those mountain peaks and grassy fields make for a nice backdrop as Franz, after briefly training for German military service, comes to the realization that supporting Hitler’s regime is not the right thing to do. Franz has probably fewer lines than any other character, as he spends a lot of time stoically bearing the brunt of judgment, ridicule and even screaming, first by the others in his village, and then by the keepers at the prison he is taken to. It does lend greater impact to the few things he does say, such as, “I can’t do what I believe is wrong.”

I felt largely ambivalent about Franz’s martyrdom, to be honest. In another scene, as Franz continues to refuse to sign a paper that declares loyalty to Hitler, he is told, “God doesn’t care what you say, only what’s in your heart!” It seemed like a reasonable argument to me, at least from the point of view of a believer. I also wondered how this movie might come across differently to atheists (like myself) as opposed to the faithful. Many people who cross Franz’s path, from townspeople to soldiers at his prison, tell him his resistance has no bearing on the outcome of the war, or on the state of the world. That may be true in the immediate term, but arguably not on the long run. He clearly inspired plenty, considering he was a real man and we’re watching a movie about him 76 years after he lived.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but wonder: Why not just tell these people what they want to hear? A Hidden Life clearly wants us to ask ourselves this question: what would you do in his position? Would you stand firm until the bitter end? I’m not sure I would, and neither am I sure that would be a shameful thing. Refusing to serve in the army is one thing; that I find far more understandable and do feel I would be much more likely to refuse as well. But to refuse to sign a document, or else face death? It’s just a sheet of paper, with only the meaning you ascribe to it. As many of the people around him also pointed out, this would not have only gotten himself out of trouble. It would have prevented his wife and three children from becoming pariahs in their village as well.

That is not to say such people are deserving any defense themselves, although Franz himself might say so: when asked by one general, “Do you judge me?” he answers no. Franz seems to have real empathy and understanding as to how and why some people do and say the things they do. He is also torn and worried about the state of his country and the notion of people he thought were friends calling him “a traitor” to his race.

A Hidden Life has clear relevance to the state of our world today, with the oft-repeated refrain of what we might tell our grandchildren we did ourselves, in the face of horrible actions on the part of national leadership. Are we all complicit? and to what extent? This movie does not at all go out of its way to underline this analogy, but it’s still plainly there to see. Franz is at one point told, “You have blood on your hands,” and that may also be true, to the extent that it is true of all of us.

Terrence Malick is posing questions to us here in the form of a three-hour movie, and they are compelling, albeit of varying severity depending on your point of view. I do wish Franz actually spoke more often. Over and over he is asked direct questions, by his friends, by his wife, by the authorities, and he will just stand or star in silence. It seems unlikely Franz Jäggerstätter was quite like that in real life. But, for the purposes of this movie, he stoically endures increasing levels of abuse. It is certainly for a just cause, but another question might ask is whether a just cause is also a worthy cause. A Hidden Life is a meticulously executed film that perhaps has no answer to that question.

Quiet resistance never looked so beautiful.

Overall: B

LITTLE WOMEN

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

It’s too soon to tell for sure, but it’s easy to imagine that, eventually, the 2019 adaptation of Little Women will be regarded as Greta Gerwig’s defining work. Just as classic literature—such as, of course, Louisa May Alcott’s original Little Women—is studied in the context of their time, and what coded messages might have been inserted into the text by the author, the same might very well be done to this film in coming years and decades. Because, unlike the many, many adaptations that have come before it, Gerwig studied the life and time of the book’s author, and found subtle ways in which to integrate such details into the story, in some cases even using lines from Alcott’s personal letters for dialogue. Given that Little Women was largely autobiographical, this approach is a natural fit, and this film is all the better for it, a worthy take for the 21st century.

You’d think that after six previous film adaptations (four of those after the silent era; one of them a misguided re-telling with the setting switched to current day, so “only” three particularly worthy of consideration), there would be no new way of looking at it. You would be wrong, especially given that it’s been 25 years since the last proper adaptation was made into film. (This doesn’t even include the many television and stage adaptations.)

I must confess, I have never read the novel. Perhaps I should. The story endures more than 150 years after first publication, and the book, never having been out of print, has sold nearly 2 million copies in that time. I have a vague sense of once, long ago, trying to watch the 1994 version starring Winona Ryder and Christian Bale, long considered the definitive modern adaptation, and finding it difficult to understand the point of the story. Maybe I was just too young. This time, due likely to both being older and being in tune to Greta Gerwig’s sensibilities, I am charmed and delighted by it.

Even though this is technically a period piece, in Gerwig’s hands, it doesn’t feel like one. It exists in a very casual, lived-in universe where people use period-specific diction but also act like regular humans of any time. In several scenes, the four March sisters are talking over each other, making for a vaguely Altman-esque effect.

The performances are fantastic. Saoirse Ronan, reportedly having stated plainly to Gerwig that she would be playing the part of Jo because it was just meant to be, appears to have been correct. Emma Watson is both understated and nuanced as Meg, the eldest sister. Florence Pugh (Lady Macbeth, MidSommar) continues her stunning streak of roles cementing her as one of the most dynamic actors of her generation, here imbuing a heretofore unseen humanity to Amy, who is usually a character offered for viewers to hate. Relative newcomer Eliza Scanlen (seen last year as Amma in HBO’s Sharp Objects) rounds out the four sisters, having possible the least meaty material but still giving the girl who gets sick a certain dignity.

All that said, I suppose there’s a certain irony to all four of the actors playing the March sisters in this very American story being Irish, British, or Australian. Every one of them is affecting an American accent. They all do it very convincingly. At least we get a scene stealing Meryl Steep as Aunt March; Bob Odenkirk in a limited presence as Mr. March, who most of the time is off serving in the Civil War; Chris Cooper as the neighbor Mr. Laurence; Tracy Letts as publisher Mr. Dashwood; and Laura Dern as Marmee March, although Dern mostly filling out backgrounds is a slight disappointment.

We do get native New Yorker Timothée Chalamet in the key role of Laurie, and he is a scrumptious treat. Just as he had in Gerwig’s previous movie, the fantastic Lady Bird, he has onscreen chemistry with Saoirse Ronan both unique and irresistible.

By all accounts, Gerwig manages to pack in more from the book than previous film adaptations, which is a bit of a double edged sword. This Little Women is well edited, all things considered—particularly considering the new approach of telling the story in flashbacks rather than the traditionally linear presentation—and yet, even at 134 minutes, it can feel a little rushed. Some have complained about the flahback structure, saying the use of all the same women to portray characters seven years apart, between their teens and their twenties, makes it at times difficult to follow. I went in knowing this might be an issue, and so I paid close attention—and then had no problem whatsoever. I guess that’s the trick, then: just pay attention!

Little Women is indeed the simple story of four young women finding their place in the world, and Greta adds a lot of speudo-meta, modern flourishes, lots of commentary on how important money was to a woman’s livelihood, and how not so very long ago the only way for them to get wealth was to marry into it. These elements are integrated into the narrative with finesse, at least most of the time; in a couple of instances, it comes through in an almost distractingly expository fashion.

Maybe one day one of the aforementioned students studying this film will single out a monologue about the importance of marrying into money and say, “That’s a little obvious.” But that’s not the point. The point is, how easy it is to imagine this film being given not just critical or commercial, but academic consideration. Greta Gerwig’s Little Women is a rich text unto itself, a delightful time capsule of 2019 and how we regard ourselves in the context of looking back at 1869. It has layers that are all its own, ripe for discovery.

Just look at that, it’ll take a century and a half to get us half as far as we want to go!

Overall: A-

BOMBSHELL

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

“Some people are saying” . . . that Bombshell doesn’t quite let former FOX News anchors Gretchen Carlson or Megyn Kelly “off the hook” for the broader structure of misinformation and oppressive propaganda they supported by ever having worked at the network to begin with. Having seen the film, I’m not sure where that idea comes from; to a person, the women shown to have been sexually harassed by Roger Ailes are depicted as entirely sympathetic characters, even though there is plenty of reason to feel contempt for them regardless of how they were legitimately mistreated by the system they helped prop up for years.

That said, upon further reflection, I’m not sure that angle has any direct relevance to the telling of this particular story. The moral standing of these women’s politics is not what Bombshell is about, and if director Jay Roach (The Campaign, Trumbo) and writer Charles Randolph (The Big Short) had made this more about that, it would have distracted from the issue at hand, which is what a vile pig of a man Roger Ailes was, and the women who brought him down for it.

Something else entirely about this movie comes rather close to being its own distraction: how convincingly the actors look like a lot of the real-life people they portray. Of all the principal players, only Margot Robbie plays a composite character, named Kayla; all the others are real people, from John Lithgow as Roger Ailes, to several bit parts like Malcolm McDowell as Rupert Murdoch, Richard Kind as Rudi Jiuliani, Kevin Dorff as Bill O’Reilly, Spencer Garrett as Sean Hannity, Tony Plana as Geraldo Rivera. Some of these appearances feel like stunts; even a couple of times—though certainly not with all of them—even I had to take a second to convince myself I wasn’t actually looking at the real person. Even Charlize Theron is so convincingly transformed as Megyn Kelly, with a deft combination of makeup and prosthetics, the movie begins with a title card assuring us that none of the real people being portrayed are ever actually seen onscreen unless in archival footage.

But, I got past any such distractions pretty quickly. Bombshell is so well acted, and for the most part well edited, that it’s surprisingly entertaining from the start, sometimes even funny, before it movies into the fairly frank revelations of what Roger Ailes asked these women to do for him in his office. It seems appropriate, then, for Kayla to be a composite character, as she is the only one with a dedicated scene showing the first step in Ailes’s harassing tactics. He first asks her to “give him a twirl,” and then asks her to lift her skirt up so he can see her legs, higher and higher until her underwear is showing. This way, at least, we’re not watching any single real-life woman going through this. It’s still a scene that is as awkward as it is gross, eliciting a very specific kind of squirming, horrified discomfort. And that is precisely the point, as is the fact that in this context, these women deserve protection and they deserve justice, regardless of what their politics are or who they work for.

In the beginning scenes, Bombshell is slightly too preoccupied with a snappy presentation, and skates through a few plot points a bit too quickly. The whole business with then-candidate Donald Trump saying Megyn Kelly was “blood coming out of her wherever” is addressed directly, but also kind of glossed over. It’s fairly quickly contextualized as background in early difficulties between Kelly and her employer, as Ailes is initially presented as coming to her defense. Much of Bombshell is about Megyn Kelly trying to decide whether she should come forward at all, after fighting a losing battle over the fallout from her rift with Trump. But, she reveals to her own staff that she had been harassed by Ailes herself roughly a decade before, and she makes this revelation in the wake of Gretchen Carlson’s meticulously planned lawsuit against him in the wake of being fired without cause.

A lot of comparisons have been made between Bombshell and last year’s Vice, which had similarly impressive physical transformations to depict real-life people. The key difference, though, is that Vice made the most vile person in that story—Dick Cheney—its protagonist, and none of its principal players were particularly sympathetic characters. For Bombshell to be truly comparable, it would have to have made Roger Ailes the protagonist. Ailes, as portrayed by John Lithgow with just the right amount of slimy creepiness, is appropriately relegated to the role of the villain. It’s the women’s story being told here, which is as it should be, Theron, Robbie, and Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson are all excellent as women who may all be perfectly deserving of criticism for other reasons, but not for their experiences with Roger Ailes.

Even all that is not entirely black and white, though, and Bombshell does address that, with one of the few scenes showing any of these three women actually interacting with one another. Kayla can’t understand why Megyn did not come forward sooner, which could have prevented her own as well as many other women’s experiences. Then again, as Megyn notes in another scene, “I’m damned for coming forward, or I’m damned for not doing it sooner.”

For a movie that distills a pretty vast and complex story down to 108 minutes, Bombshell succeeds remarkably well. It slightly falls victim to the limitations of the form, but it’s also in a medium that gets the widest audience (well, aside from cable news itself, perhaps). It’s a worthy story compellingly told, by turns entertaining (Kate McKinnon as a secret lesbian Democrat working at FOX News because she couldn’t get hired anywhere else, at the desk next to Kayla’s, was actually a nice touch, I thought) and deeply disturbing. This movie is realistic about what happens in real life, but lacks the deep cynicism of a movie like Vice, which is what makes it better. This one is imperfect but illuminating, and very much worth the time.

Allies with Ailes, until they’re not.

Overall: B+

CATS

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

The trick to enjoying Cats—or at least, to almost enjoying it—is to be drinking while you watch it. A lot. This was what my friends and I did going in, and it really made a difference. Particularly for me, by comparison: the other two people I saw this movie with had two cocktails each. I, on the other hand, had two margaritas, to which I added an extra contraband shot of tequila each, and I then had a snack of tequila chocolates afterward. Clearly I was the smartest person in the room. That would include everyone who had been involved in the production of this movie.

But there’s another trick! If you want to be pleasantly surprised, by even the tiniest sliver of a measure, seriously lower your expectations. The one true defense that can be made of this film is that condensing it down to a two-and-a-half-minute trailer made it look a lot more horrifying than it really is, on the whole. The flip side of that is, it also made it look a lot less dull. Because let’s face it, particularly if you have never seen the famously record-length-running Broadway show on which it’s based (which itself was largely derided as just for clueless tourists), Cats is largely just a 110-minute exercise in tedium.

And yet, because of the rolling mass of negative press, we all left the movie saying it wasn’t quite as horrible as we thought it would be. We dodn’t hate it. It was just . . . dull. The second half less so, but who wants to have to sit first through an hour of confusing editing, unsettling CGI, and a script that makes no sense? It’s originally based on a 1939 collection of T.S. Elliot poems called Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats, written for his godchildren. In the play, the “Jellicle Cats” are all going to a “Jellicle Ball” where they will compete to be chosen to go to a place called the “Heaviside Layer” to be reincarnated. That’s basically the extent of any plotting, as most of the story just consists of songs that serve as introduction to many different Jellice Cat characters.

The music is entirely forgettable. “Memory” is the sole famous song from it, and while it is indeed the best performance in this film (by Jennifer Hudson), I found even that song forgettable. I could hardly make out the words, what with Hudson’s constant sniveling and the inexplicable choice to keep showing more snot on her lips than tears. Yuck. In a long tradition of adding an original song to a musical adaptation to qualify for Oscar contention, Taylor Swift shows up to co-write “Beautiful Ghosts” with original book writer Andrew Lloyd Weber. That turns out to be an apt song title, because the memory of it disappears as soon as the number is finished. (Swift, incidentally, shows up onscreen as one of the cats, not to sing that song—though she does sing a pop version of it over the end credits—but to sing “Macavity.”)

But of course, I must address the spectacularly misguided special effects. This, more than anything, makes you wonder how or why any of the people involved—which also includes the likes of Edris Elba, Judi Dench, and Ian McKellen, among others—thought a film adaptation of Cats was a good idea. At least, not with live action integrated with CGI in such a way, where fur and realistic-looking cat ears and tails were digitally grafted onto human bodies. Just filming a version of the stage play with people in the traditional cat leotard costumes and face paint would have made far more sense. That’s the only way you can imagine this impressing audiences, after all: to see incredibly fit bodies achieve the kind of dance moves you could never do on a stage. Not to see cat-leaps enhanced by digital effects, director Tom Hooper included apparently just because he could. Evidently he never stopped to think about whether he should.

And the thing is, it’s not even done well. This is the part that is the stuff of nightmares, the stuff that makes you imagine a bad trip after taking acid. Is that what the effects team did before they set about their work? The humanoid faces don’t even always match the herky-jerky movements of the bodies (apparently to evoke “cat movements,” not at all successfully) quite right, vaguely evoking a horribly evolved, digital version of the rudimentary animation from South Park. People complained as far back as the first trailer about the inconsistency of scale. I found myself thinking about that while watching the full movie, even thinking the scale was working a lot better than I expected. And then the number by and about “Skimbleshanks” The Railway Cat” first features all the cats atop railway tracks, on which they are way too small'; mid-sequence they suddenly appear inside a railway car, in which they are way too big. What kind of inter-dimensional horror show is this? The weirdest thing about Cats is that the effects could have been done so much better, but somehow they just got their visual priorities all mixed up.

There’s always also the inevitability of bias, and how that affects how you feel about something for which already have a particular expectation. With Cats, the bias works kind of backward: I liked it better than I expected to, only because I had such profoundly low expectations. What if I had gone into this movie cold, having no idea what I was walking to, having never seen the trailer or even heard about it? Realistically, I probably would have hated it. I was already literally thinking to myself, What the fuck? multiple times as it was, even going on four shots of tequila. This movie includes a dance sequence featuring tiny humanoid cockroaches, several of which get eaten by the cat played by Rebel Wilson, who gets several moments of “gags” that land with a thud. My favorite is when she makes a crack about whether one of the other cats had been neutered, even glancing at his crotch. And this is in a world where none of the “cats” have genitals at all, just finely furred humanoid and flat Ken Doll crotches.

A lot of the production design here is visually interesting, I guess, but that hardly makes up for much. The truth is, even factoring in a deliberately specific approach to make the experience more fun, Cats still qualifies as the worst movie I’ve seen all year.

Just for the record: that cat is not peeing. She’s just a ballerina.

Overall: C-

STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER

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

There’s a huge twist, which changes everything, in The Rise of Skywalker. It reconfigures the Star Wars mythology in a way on par with “I am your father,” and honestly, I welcomed it. It’s an intriguing, even exhilarating idea. I just wish it didn’t feel so much like it was never part of the long game in plotting the story arc of this entire trilogy, like they only just thought of it when making this movie, to correct a perceived scattered aimlessness of the previous two installments.

And mind you, I loved The Force Awakens (2015) and especially The Last Jedi (2017). I liked The Rise of Skywalker, but I cant say I loved it. I still had one particular complaint throughout, which certainly bears out now: the “Marvel-ization” of Star Wars was arguably the biggest mistake made in the history of this franchise. In the cases of both the original and the prequel trilogies, each film was released three years apart. It made every single film an event, something for which massive anticipation was part of the process and the fun.

The core “episode” films this go-round were only released every two years, with two “Star Wars universe” films released in both the years in between (Rogue One and Solo), to diminishing returns. Sure, The Rise of Skywalker qualifies as “an event” in that it’s the final of nine episodes of the Skywalker Saga, but there is no doubt how much bigger these events would have been had we had to wait until 2018 for The Last Jedi and then 2021 for this one, with no extras in between. Why not wait for the “a Star Wars story” movies until the next decade? Instead, they flooded the market with five movies in as many years. This shit works for Marvel (though not as much for me even there, honestly); it doesn’t quite work for Star Wars. If more time were taken between releases, there would have been a lot more time to make this one better.

I spent the first half hour or so of The Rise of Skywalker feeling a numbing sensory overload, much more than excitement about what was going on. Eventually incomprehensible pacing gives way to convoluted plot, and that’s actually a welcome improvement. Either way, it’s far better to find yourself thinking What’s going to happen next! than What the hell is going on? The opening sequences of this film are in sharp contrast to the previous two, which have an urgency to them that feels right, is exciting, and is easy to follow.

All that said, I did think about this while watching The Rise of Skywalker: What if I were just one of the millions of movie-goers who don’t pay any attention to the minutiae of things like who directed it, who wrote it, how it’s edited or how it’s shot, and just come to have a good time? Would I care about any of this stuff? Would I care at all what critics are saying, whether positive or negative? Probably not. Consider this: for many years, Return of the Jedi was my favorite one of the original trilogy—until I gained a working knowledge of the critical consensus. Everyone knows The Empire Strikes Back is the best! I actually still have a special place in my heart for Return of the Jedi. And guess what? That movie’s critical consensus is on par with The Rise of Skywalker.

So. Did I have a good time at this movie? Of course I did! I just made the mistake of spending too much time comparing it to what came before, particularly among the sequel trilogy. I would suggest that you not do that. It’ll probably be easier for you, since in all likelihood you don’t go out of your way to watch every movie with a critical eye. Granted, Star Wars fans are of a particular breed, and far too many of them were whiny bitches about the curve balls introduced in The Last Jedi, which I found to be a delight. And also, it’s true, we now live in a world where fan bases get far more steeped into the details than they used to, now that we have far more talk shows and particularly podcasts in addition to all the reviews and blog posts and tweets. Your best bet will be to let all that go. Come to the movie and surrender to it. I fully intend to see The Rise of Skywalker at least once more in the theater, and although I have zero expectation that I will change my assessment of it, I also expect that a second viewing, which is by definition impossible to disappoint, will be far more fun.

Just a few more points. J.J. Abrams had a thankless task of figuring out how to integrate the late Carrie Fisher into this installment, and there was just no way to make it really work. Having General Leia Organa pass away between movies, with characters all just dealing with the aftermath now, would have been just too sad; digitally inserting old footage of her from previous productions feels both wildly contrived (particularly with how her dialogue integrates into the script) and awkwardly placed, even in a strictly physical sense. There’s just no winning there, but Abrams handled the character as well as anyone could hope under the circumstances. Fisher gets just about as much screen time as she got in The Force Awakens, which is to say, not much.

This weakens the effect of the broader sense of acting performance among the entire cast. There’s also the effect of countless new plot points shoehorned into the story arc as this movie, long as it is—141 minutes—moves at an exhaustingly breakneck pace, which gives little time for a lot of the dialogue or performances to breathe. All the acting here is immeasurably better than that of the prequel trilogy films, of course (not exactly a high bar there), but many of them feel a bit phoned in, at least compared to the others in this trilogy. The notable exceptions are Daisy Ridley as Rey, who gives possibly her best performance in this fanchise, and to a slightly lesser extent, Adam Driver, who was given meatier content to work with in previous films. Kylo Ren winds up with that stupid and pointless helmet right back on again in this movie, which means we get less time to see the emoting on his beautiful, tortured face.

And yet! Several moments in The Rise of Skywalker are genuinely emotionally affecting. True lovers of Star Wars from childhood will likely cry multiple times (the one I saw this movie with did); even I got genuinely teary at least once. As weak and disjointed as this movie it as it starts, it largely course-corrects itself as it goes on, and by the end, just because of all that had come before it, the final conclusion is genuinely moving. There’s a couple of things that feel like throwing a bone to certain communities (a somewhat brief return of Billy Dee Williams as Lando, for the Star Wars purists; a brief lesbian kiss, for the gays), and although I don’t like feeling like I’m being patronized, sometimes I’ll take what I can get.

And if nothing else, The Rise of SKywalker is certainly a thrill ride, even if it’s not your favorite one at the amusement park. Once it’s done, it’s shocking to think how long the movie really is, because it never feels like it. Some people out there even think it’s the best; we all have our preferences. I, for one, think it’s far from the best—but, it’s also far from the worst. A solid outing. Lots of fun, and probably even more fun with repeat viewings. And when it comes to the bottom line, that’s far more relevant than subjective ratings, isn’t it?

Wow, this place turned into a dump!

Overall: B

DARK WATERS

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

Maybe it’s just because we are currently living in an era with such blatant injustice and corruption, being waved in front of our faces as a constant taunt every day. It just feels like more of an effort to get all riled up about a movie like Dark Waters, and this is a movie about a mega-corporation getting away with knowingly poisoning an entire community. It makes me wonder, would Spotlight have made anywhere near the same impact if it had been released in 2019 instead of 2015? That movie won the Academy Award for Best Picture and stopped just short of $100 million in worldwide grosses. Dark Waters is about just as vital a subject matter, has grossed barely $6.8 million in three weeks, and will almost certainly get no Oscar nominations at all. People are exhausted by being told what they already know: our system is not for the people. No wonder people flock to fantasies like Avengers: Endgame.

When it comes to Dark Waters, though, this leaves me in a bit of a pickle. Should you see it? Oh, definitely, yes. Will it make you feel better about anything at all? Oh, probably not.

This film starts in 1975. A brief scene of a few drunk kids getting caught swimming in a lake they shouldn’t be in, or more reasons than one. There’s a brief shot of a bare skinny dipping butt, so I guess that’s exciting. After a brief moment seeing officials on a boat shooing the kids away and then spraying the surface of the water with something from hoses that is never given any specific explanation, the timeline jumps to 1998 Cincinnati. This is the year the initial case against DuPont begins. By the end of the film we’ve reached 2012, attorney Robert Billott (Mark Ruffalo) and his wife Sarah’s (Anne Hathaway) kids are teenagers, and even that’s not the end of it.

In other words, it’s a bit of a slog—and that’s the point. It’s just what DuPont wanted. Still, Dark Waters could have stood at least some tweaks of its editing. At least twice during long tracking shots, I found myself thinking about how the film, which runs at 126 minutes, would have been no worse off without these few minutes. But, cinematographer Edward Lachman (Carol) needs some time to make things look interesting. He actually does a good job, all things considered, but there’s only so much you can do with a movie largely set in law firm meeting rooms. Every once in a while we get a party or a banquet.

Robert does visit the farm in West Virginia where nearly 200 cows have died. The local townspeople as well as this farmer and his wife are presented as no-nonsense and with respect and empathy. The acting across the board is possibly the best thing about this movie. Mark Ruffalo, all scowls and hunches and boxy shoulders and frumpy, is a far cry from the Hulk he plays in the—speak of the Devil—Avengers movies. He disappears into the role. Anne Hathaway’s presence is a little thankless by comparison; perhaps the writers did not see the irony in having her say the line, “Don’t talk to me like I’m the wife.” She’s a stay-at-home mom, and in this movie, “the wife” is all she can be. If Hathaway just wanted to be a part of this because she believed in the overall message of the movie, I can respect that.

That said, while I can’t say I was ever bored watching Dark Waters, it is also lacking in any genuine drama. It’s tedious with a point, and it does feel like necessary information. We’re meant to get a feeling of how much time and effort—literally a decade and a half of it—it took for Robert Billott to make any headway on this case. In the end, there are some positive results. Just not enough to make you stop feeling like DuPont is basically getting away with murder to this day. If nothing else, this movie contextualizes why these days we all avoid Teflon like the plague. A chemical compound used to make it remains in all of our blood streams and won’t ever go away, though. Fun!

I don’t know . . . maybe if you just read this review, that’s enough. DuPont sucks, they literally poisoned all of us, don’t buy . . . whatever they make. This actually is important. The movie is well put together and skillfully acted. Watch it if you feel like maybe you should, and at some point at least, you probably should. Or you could just take another dose of the opiate of the masses and watch another Marvel movie. Just imagine The Hulk turning to the screen and shouting, “Boycot DuPont! HULK SMASH DUPONT!”

This is when Mark Ruffalo turns into Oprah. “YOU get cancer! And YOU get cancer!”

Overall: B

MARRIAGE STORY

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

I have reached a point of accepting that companies like Netflix and Amazon are irrevocably changing movies as we know it, or at least the way we watch them—and I say this as someone who has historically been a cinema purist. Marriage Story, much like The Irishman last month or Roma last year, is a mostly excellent film made with the backing of Netflix, given a very brief theatrical release to qualify for Academy Awards, but available to the widest audience by very quickly thereafter being available streaming.

There are two key differences between those two previous movies and this one, though. Roma in particular, with its stunning technical achievements, commanded theatrical viewing. The Irishman, some would argue, commanded the same—its three-and-a-half-hour run time notwithstanding—due to its director (Martin Scorsese) and its context in cinema history, although I didn’t find it particularly imperative to view in theaters, personally. And, really, the same can be said of Marriage Story, which is an incredibly absorbing drama but with nothing technical about it to woo viewers any more on the big screen than it would have at home.

There’s always the argument of the “communal experience,” of course, which I generally subscribe to as well. And that is available here, even now, here in the Seattle area, playing at Landmark’s discount Crest Theater in Shoreline at least through the end of next week. It isn’t playing anywhere else, though, which severely limits your options if you’d really like to see it in a theater. That is precisely why I’m breaking with my own convention and actually posting a review of it, even though I did not see it on the big screen. I watched it alone at home, as it’s also available streaming as we speak—an increasingly common case of a movie available streaming or on demand simultaneously with theatrical release. And, yes: I want to be part of the discussion about this movie’s award prospects.

The thing is, though, in relative contrast to The Irishman and in sharp contrast to Roma, I would not suggest you go out of your way to see this one in a theater. I’m even leaning toward suggesting you watch it at home. Whether or not you should watch it with your spouse, in the event that you are married or partnered, I am having trouble deciding. Marriage Story seems like the kind of movie that, depending on your circumstances, can either strengthen your gratitude for being married, or nudge you closer to deciding you don’t like it so much. For now at least, I fall into the former category. This could have been awkward to watch with my husband, and yet I immediately imagined it making him take hold of my hand. Not out of desperate hope, but out of loving appreciation.

And just contemplating this film has its own rewards. It sinks into you slowly, and then takes hold, and you keep thinking about it. This is not your conventional movie about divorce. And that’s not just because it’s written and directed by Noah Bombauch, whose uniquely cutting wit previously brought us the likes of Frances Ha (2015) and The Squid and the Whale (2005). Marriage Story, though, is by far the most accessible film he’s ever made, and it may also be his best.

This is a movie that refuses to simplify its characters, never allowing either party to fall into caricature, or become villains. They never quite even behave like bad people. They just occasionally make a mess of things. They’re just . . . human. That may not exactly sound revolutionary, but as performed by Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver, it’s at the very least revelatory. There is no hate between these two people, even when they occasionally do and say hateful things. Their actions are fueled by a frustration with an inability to make it work even when they still love each other.

They have a child, which complicates things. Charlie is a theater director in New York City; Nicole is his lead actor who has felt a potential acting career in Los Angeles has been sacrificed to stick with him in New York for ten years. This gives Marriage Story a slightly “inside baseball” feel, what with how personal and semiautobiographical this is for Baumbach. You might expect this to alienate some viewers slightly, but the issues and themes of compromise and resentment between a married couple are universal. If there is any lesson to be learned from this, it’s not only the importance of communication in any relationship, but clarity. Charlie and Nicole traffic in a lot of assumptions stretched over many years.

The kid, played by Azhy Robertson, is kind of a little shit sometimes. One might be tempted to say “the kid kind of sucks” (as was said on one podcast I listen to), but I don’t think that’s fair. He seems like a perfectly regular kid to me, and it’s nice to see a kid character in a motion picture who is not creepily precocious. As for Henry’s behaviors, what else do you expect when a couple going through a breakup inevitably put their child in the crosshairs?

As you might imagine, Marriage Story gets very sad at times. You’ll want a tissue at the ready. The nice surprise, though, is that this movie is also a lot funnier than you might expect. It’s still a Noah Baumbach film, after all, and it provides enough laughs that it borders on dramedy. And it’s not just to cut the tension; it’s just a part of life. Laughter and sadness, we all experience them both. I’ve seen Baumbach films that made their characters almost self-consciously “quirky,” in a way that made them feel just short of real. By that measure, this is Baumbach’s definitive masterwork, having ironed out such quirks. Everything about Marriage Story feels plausible and authentic. You laugh with and hurt for all parties involved. These are people you feel confident will never stop caring about each other. And even in a movie about something as painful as divorce, that is a great comfort.

A couple reads from the same book, and realizes they aren’t on the same page.

Overall: A-

QUEEN & SLIM

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

There’s a lot to love about the production elements of Queen & Slim. It’s directed by a black woman (Malina Matsoukas, her feature film debut), and written by a different black woman (Master of None’s Lena Waithe). In addition to supporting parts featuring Chlöe Sevigny, Flea, and a cameo by Gayle King, it also features trans actor Indya Moore, in a part that makes no mention or reference to trans-ness. This strikes me as significant: so the argument goes, trans parts should go to trans actors (as Moore has in the FX series Pose as Angel), precisely because trans actors never get offered parts otherwise. Here is the first example I have ever seen of that happening, in a wide release, studio film.

Here’s an odd bit, though. Lena Waithe’s script is written from a story developed by her and . . . James Frey, of A Million Little Pieces infamy. Now, don’t get me wrong; that media circus about a “memoir” that was largely fabricated was a decade and a half ago; and, a good writer is a good writer. I have no issue with Frey continuing to make a living off genuine talents. All that notwithstanding, a white guy with the kind of baggage James Frey has, for a movie like this, about a black couple on the run from the law after shooting a police officer in self defense? It’s just an odd choice.

And one has to wonder, which one of these writers contributed the most to Queen & Slim’s unfortunately gradual slip into implausibility, or how as it goes on, the cornier it gets? The opening sequence, before the title sequence, is a fantastic scene between the two leads, Daniel Kaluuya as Slim and Jodie Turner-Smith as Queen, on their first Tinder date. The dialogue is snappy yet well paced, and these two immediately prove they have chemistry together, and they’re just talking over dinner at a diner.

But then, the inciting incident happens very quickly: as Slim is driving Queen home, they get pulled over by a jumpy police officer, a white guy later revealed to have a separate incident in his past that I’m not convinced was necessary for making this story work. Queen has already revealed herself to be an exceedingly knowledgeable attorney, and when the cop pulls his gun on Slim without provocation, she gets out of the car and effectively complicates an unwinnable scenario. The cop is dead and these two are on the run before we even see the title Queen & Slim on screen.

What follows is effectively a road movie, “black Bonnie & Clyde” meets “black Thelma & Louise.” (Only the former phrase is ever actually uttered in this film’s dialogue, by Queen’s Uncle Earl, played by Bokeem Woodbine.) We meet many characters for comparatively brief sequences, as they pass through Queen and Slim’s travels. As their fugitive status becomes a bigger and bigger media sensation, they become icons of the black community, getting help from random strangers to such a degree, ultimately, that it begins to stretch believability. I’m not convinced a black cop would let them go just because he happens to be black, but this movie seems to suggest just that (having said cop get reflexively defensive about his white partner’s fairly benign use of the word “boy,” just for good measure).

The first half or so of Queen & Slim is very well edited and expertly paced, a movie about two young people barely staying one step ahead of a situation that has them out of their depth. It’s exciting in ways that are unnerving as well as subtle. In its second half, it never goes off the rails, but it feels like it’s moving in a slow arc in that direction. As Queen and Slim become icons, there is a brief but overt suggestion that they have inspired young black kids to think it’s okay to shoot cops, and this idea is treated neither with as much time as it should get, nor with any nuance.

Even as the dialogue begins to veer into the realm of the cheesy, as Queen and Slim catch romantic feelings for each other in the midst of their intermittent fear and chaos, Kaluuya and Turner-Smith elevate the material with their charismatic performances. Queen & Smith feels like something with aspirations to have an indelible mark on the zeitgeist, indeed something on par with Thelma & Louise—right down to its unfortunately predictable ending—but that might just be its biggest problem. The only movies that have that kind of seismic impact are those that aren’t trying to, the ones whose makers never even considered that possibility.

Which is to say, as compelling as Queen & Slim is from beginning to end, the more you think about it, getting into the details, the more subtly problematic it becomes. This movie has a great many things that are worthy of celebration, but sometimes we have to celebrate something not because it’s as great as it could be, but because it’s the best we’ve got. And to be sure, this movie’s ambitions alone are commendable. Let’s hope it paves the way for more artists to fully realize their potential.

Can you see it? The inevitable murals and posters and T-shirts?

Overall: B