Richard Jewell: Man Against the Machine

I’ll admit, I watched Richard Jewell out of a sense of obligation rather than any genuine interest. It has gotten nominated for awards and received some critical recognition, but I figured this was for the Clint Eastwood fanboys, much like everyone going wild for Scorsese’s The Irishman. However, turns out this movie is actually quite a treat, thanks to its star, Paul Walter Hauser.

Hauser plays the eponymous Richard Jewell, a security guard who was working in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics and helped to alert the police to the presence of a bomb. Jewell was initially hailed as a a national hero for his quick intervention, but once word got out that the FBI was treating him as the main suspect in the bombing, things rapidly went south. I knew nothing about the 1996 bombing or Jewell so this movie constantly took me by surprise, but people who remember this story will probably enjoy it even more as they probably had no idea about the behind-the-scenes drama in Jewell's household. Kathy Bates plays his mother, Bobi, a woman who loves her son and is so kind and proud and then starts to crumble under the intense media scrutiny and vitriol lobbed at Richard. I can't imagine how this story would have played out today with 24/7 news outlets and endless social media furor, but it was traumatic enough for this family in 1996.

Jon Hamm also stars as a very devious FBI agent, Tom Shaw, who doesn't seen to think it is necessary to play by the rules and does everything he can to entrap Jewell into a confession. Thankfully, Jewell enlists the help of a lawyer, Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell, who is great in this film and finally playing a good guy after a string of roles where he has been Nazi-adjacent), who has his back and fights tirelessly to get this man's life back on track. The dynamic between Jewell and Bryant is fantastic, with Bryant constantly prodding Jewell to be less subservient and fight for his rights. The screenplay by Billy Ray is powerful, showcasing how Jewell, who was raised his whole life to respect authority and always dreamed of a career in law enforcement, is now being mistreated and maligned by his idols and has no idea how to react. Hauser does a brilliant job of portraying Jewell's slow confusion and the ultimate realization of his betrayal - it is a stoic and heroic performance, never tipping over into melodrama, but always ensuring you can feel every emotion that is going through this man's head.

However, I would be remiss if I didn't point out some of the more problematic aspects of the film. At a time when people seem intent on vilifying government institutions and the FBI, this movie further fuels that narrative of distrusting big government. I don't know how much of what is portrayed in the film is true - the FBI agents treat Jewell quite egregiously, and there was certainly a lot of gasping from the audience at how blatantly terrible their actions were. But given Eastwood's Republican tendencies, I definitely had a sense that I was being told that we shouldn't trust the FBI and the common man can only depend on himself for his own survival. The second issue with this film is its treatment of Kathy Scruggs (played by Olivia Wilde), the journalist who first broke the story that Jewell was the target of the FBI's investigation. In the movie she is portrayed as a rapacious woman who has sex with a source for the story, which plays into every sexist trope of female journalists. Scruggs died in 2001, but the paper she worked for, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution has published an open letter condemning the scene as "entirely false and malicious." Unsurprisingly, this is what often happens when men write and direct movies - you get a powerful and brilliant performance from the leading male actor, but the supporting actresses only get stereotypical one-note parts.

Putting those controversies aside, overall, I enjoyed Richard Jewell. It was a compelling story about the type of man you don't often get to see starring in a Hollywood movie. I have no doubt that vast swathes of the story have been mined for drama and fabricated to create maximum tension, but all I cared about was Hauser's singularly great acting performance. It was restrained but brimming with emotion, and even though this movie isn't doing too well at the box office, I dearly hope he gets some awards love. After all, the whole point of a Best Actor is that he elevates the movie he's in. 

Little Women: The Feminist Retelling We Needed for 2019

A year ago, I learned that Greta Gerwig had written and directed an adaptation of Little Women and it would be released on Christmas Day 2019. Since that announcement, this movie is what I have been most looking forward to all year. Little Women is one of my most cherished novels. The 1994 film (also a Christmas Day release) is a highlight of my childhood and I have watched it countless times. I have been in love with the character of Jo March my entire life, and I thought no one would supplant Winona Ryder as Jo in my imagination. But it has now happened, because Saoirse Ronan (and really, Greta Gerwig, who is the true Jo of this movie) has stolen my heart. The following review lists out everything I so deeply loved about this film and as such is brimming with spoilers. Please watch this movie first and read this review later. You deserve to treat yourself to this cinematic feast. However, if you do want a teaser, I highly recommend this Vanity Fair video where Gerwig and some of the cast dissect a scene in the movie. It will immediately tell you everything you need to know about how much love and artistry went into making this film.

1. The casting. Every character in this film has been impeccably cast: shout out to casting directors Kathy Driscoll and Francine Maisler. Yes, Saoirse Ronan as Jo is perfect, with her angular face and wild carefree attitude that is so at odds with the women of her day. But Emma Watson is also the perfect Meg, the beauty of the family who is gentle but strong, tempted by riches but wise enough to know that love is more important. Eliza Scanlen is a wondrous Beth, demonstrating her crippling shyness but also the efforts she takes to acknowledge others' kindnesses and give of herself in myriad ways until she no longer can. And Florence Pugh is a delight as Amy, the most irritating March sister. While it's definitely a hard ask to play 12-year old Amy in the childhood scenes, Pugh does a creditable job, highlighting what a brat Amy can be, but helping us to understand how she fits into this family and how her mind had been molded to think that her only escape from her existence will be to marry well. Then of course there's Laura Dern as the indomitable Marmee, the woman who is tirelessly raising these little women while her husband is off to war and does it with a cheerful composure that masks her own frustration and fatigue. And there's Meryl Streep as the cantankerous Aunt March, a horribly plain-speaking woman who wants the March sisters to do well but has very little hope that they will. We also get the wonderful Jayne Houdyshell as the hardworking Hannah, the Marches' maid who ensures they are fed and clothed and keeps things moving while the girls are off on their adventures. Moving from the women, we have Timothee Chalamet as Laurie, who is charming and always a treat opposite Saoirse Ronan: that casting helps as the two are such great friends in real life and it shows on screen. But he suffers from the opposite problem as Florence Pugh: while he's lovely as young Laurie, the older, more careworn adult is a harder thing to pull off and I'm not sure that he succeeds. For now, Christian Bale from the 1994 film will still be my Laurie. Louis Garrell as Professor Bhaer is also an interesting choice, because he's French, not German, which is a departure from the novel. But given how Gerwig treats that particular plot point (more on that later), it makes sense she wouldn't be too fussed about his nationality. We also have Chris Cooper as Laurie's grandfather, and this movie really amps up what a tender-hearted friend and surrogate father figure he becomes to the March women. Which brings us to the only casting decision that I found bizarre: Bob Odenkirk as Mr. March. To me, Odenkirk will always be Saul Goodman or some sort of comic relief, and I can't take him seriously as the patriarch of the March household. But he is barely in the film, so it doesn't really matter. 

2. The script. This movie captures everything I love about the novel. Every vignette, every line of dialogue, every plot point. They're all in there. But rather than following the straight timeline as the girls grow into women, Gerwig starts with the adult Jo marching into a New York editor's office to sell a sensational story, and then flashes back and forth between childhood and adulthood. This lends novelty to the piece since all the prior film adaptations have never messed with the novel's structure. But it also helps to develop these characters and remind us of what events in their childhood led to the decisions they made as adults. Meg's marriage to John Brooke is so much more compelling when immediately contrasted with her girlish fantasies of high society. Amy's desire for a rich husband is so much more nuanced when you see her as a young girl being taught by Aunt March that she is her family's only hope to rescue them from poverty. And most devastatingly of all, we contrast the first time Beth falls ill from scarlet fever and recovers to the second time when she dies, and it broke my heart. Beth's death is always sad, but told in this fashion, it is utterly devastating. Of note, the book and movies always seemed to focus on Jo's sadness when her favorite sister dies, but in this movie, it was Marmee's reaction that destroyed me. Massive kudos to Gerwig and editor Nick Houy for successfully executing all these time jumps and ensuring the story remains intact. As detailed in the Vanity Fair video, credit is also due to cinematographer Yorick Le Saux, as the childhood scenes are suffused with a "golden glow," which also helps to delineate timelines.

3. The feminism. As faithful as the script is to the novel, Gerwig throws in some curveballs and amps up the feminist manifesto. This is all in keeping with author Louisa May Alcott, a woman who never married and said she preferred to be "a free spinster and paddle her own canoe." Alcott was always my role model and I loved that quote, so nothing delighted me more than when Jo actually says it in this movie when she's trying to convince Meg not to get married. What is so important, however, is that this film doesn't sideline the ambitions of any of the other women and say that Jo is the only one who's living a proper woman's life. When Jo is being petulant and saying Meg shouldn't feel obligated to get married, Meg gently explains to her that, "Just because my dreams are different from yours, it doesn't mean they're unimportant." There are plenty of scenes in the movie where Amy grapples with how marriage is an "economic proposition" and Jo is railing against the unfairness of being a woman and we are reminded repeatedly of how few options these women had to lead independent lives. But the moral of the story is never that everyone should be like Jo and forge ahead with a brilliant literary career and no husband. Instead, the feminist moral is that all women should have the freedom to pursue their own dreams. They should be allowed to dream, and accomplish those dreams, without judgment from society or their own sister. Ultimately, all four sisters have very different fates, but there is never any doubt that they followed their hearts' desire, and that is what makes Little Women such a feminist masterpiece. Of course, the one quibble is Jo's marriage to Professor Bhaer, a twist that Alcott was forced to include to make the novel more commercially viable. I won't spoil what Gerwig does with that ending in this movie, but let's just say that she lends her true auteur's stamp to that particular plot point. Some diehard fans of the book won't like it, but Louisa May Alcott would be proud.

4. The costumes. The Vanity Fair video gave me a primer before the movie but I would have been captivated by these costumes even if I had no inkling of the effort that costume designer, Jacqueline Durran, put into them. Jo is always clad in something a little masculine and comfortable, while the other women are always a little more constrained. In one scene, Jo is walking arm-in-arm with Amy and Meg, and it is so bracing to see her uncorseted with no hoops in her skirt, unencumbered by all that burdensome femininity, embodying the tomboy attitude that made her such a heroine to me as a child. I kept noticing the color palette, with Jo wearing pops of red, Meg usually in something green, Beth in pinks and browns, and Amy in that gorgeous light blue that captured all of her desire to be refined and elegant. Early on in the movie, there is a scene in a Parisian park that genuinely looks like something out of a Monet painting and it quite took my breath away. While the focus is on Amy, Laurie, and Aunt March, I couldn't help gazing at the extras carrying parasols and furbellowed gowns and marvelling at how picturesque everything looked. It was a short scene, but every element was as perfect as if the entire movie was to be shot in that park, and it showcases the art that went into every frame of this film. 

5. The humanity. All of the above elements of the movie work together beautifully to create the world and develop these magnificent characters. As I watched the film, I was incandescently happy, because even though I knew every story element and who these women were, it somehow felt like I was seeing them through fresh eyes. The constant flashbacks meant that my emotions were always seesawing, which encapsulates the human condition; there are always ups and downs and these women go through events that can seem like utmost tragedy, only to recover the next day and have a laugh about it. Gerwig aptly captures the relationships between the sisters and gives all four women their due. She shows how they fight - not like petulant girls, but like proper sisters who want to tear each others' hair out when they have been wronged (paritcularly in the case of Jo and Amy). All of this leads to you feeling a bit emotionally on edge throughout the movie. And then we get to Jo's monologue after Beth's death, a moment when she is feeling unsettled, unsure of what her next steps are going to be, sad and purposeless. She first delivers a speech that is actually from another Alcott novel, Rose in Bloom, but which feels very apt for Jo March. It's a speech that's in the trailer, so you may have already heard it, but it is a screed about how women are full human beings, capable of so much, but are always just told that love is all they're fit for. On its own, it's a powerful speech. But what breaks your heart is what follows. Because Jo now confides to her mother that if Laurie were to propose to her again, she would probably say yes. And when Marmee asks, "Do you love him?" she can only reply, "I want to be loved." And when Marmee wisely declares, "that's not the same thing," Jo declares, "I'm so lonely." It is the most fundamental declaration of the pain of being human. We are capable of so much, and can do so many things, but sometimes the price of pursuing our dreams is that we are so incredibly lonely. It is something I have declared many times, and to see my heroine, my idol, espouse the same sentiment on screen, made me sob buckets. I had to re-read that chapter of the book, and realized that while that exchange does take place in the novel, Gerwig has wisely re-worked it to give it a more fiery intensity and pathos. As far as I'm concerned, she deserves an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay for that one scene alone.

So that's Little Women. I went into this movie with insurmountable expectations, and somehow those expectations were blown out of the water. It is told with so much warmth, humor, brilliance, and insight, and it is as close to perfect as any movie could be. It is a cinematic masterpiece that I plan on rewatching multiple times and luxuriating in for decades to come. 

Bombshell: Ladies Unite

It seems only fitting that following my review of The Morning Show, a TV show about sexual harassment, I now post a review of Bombshell, a movie about sexual harassment. 'Tis the season, Merry Christmas everyone!

Bombshell tells the real-life story of how Fox News anchor, Gretchen Carlson, sued Roger Ailes, the skeezy founder of Fox News, for sexual harassment, which led to him being fired in July 2016, a rare victory for the #MeToo movement. Based off a screenplay by Charles Randolph and directed by Jay Roach, the movie offers a quick and dirty (emphasis on "dirty") look at the workplace culture at Fox News and the different ways the men and women employed there reacted to the lawsuit. The tone of the movie is very The Big Short-esque: the actors often break the fourth wall to talk directly to the camera, there's a lot of cutesy scene-setting at the beginning, voiceover narration, and other flourishes that are bit over-the-top. But once all the tricks settle down and the director focuses solely on the three women at the heart of this story, things really get moving.

The trinity consists of Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson, Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly, and Margot Robbie who plays a fictional associate producer named Kayla Pospisil. Kidman does a fine job but she never quite disappears into the character - instead, the screenplay does the heavy lifting to demonstrate what an incredible job Carlson did when she decided enough was enough. Turns out that while Roger Ailes (played in this movie by John Lithgow, who is an absolute mensch in real life, but is a total creep in this movie) may have hired women for their sex appeal, Carlson wasn't just a Miss America-winning blonde who looked good in a skirt. She was a wickedly smart Stanford-educated lawyer, and that legal training came in mighty handy when she went after Ailes and brought about his downfall with surgical precision.

Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly is a marvel. The makeup department deserves an Oscar because they managed to make her look eerily like Kelly - when I first saw the trailers for this film, I had no idea who the actress was until they flashed her name up on the screen. In addition to looking like her, Theron has nailed her voice and general demeanor and it is wonderful to watch her feud with Donald Trump and try to take on the establishment, all while insisting she is not a feminist. The script captures the tension of what it is like to be a woman in power at Fox News - Kelly had paid her dues and earned her spot at the top, but she still had a conscience. Unlike the Jeanine Pirros and Greta van Susterens of the world, she couldn't toe the party line and blindly support Ailes during the lawsuit when she had firsthand knowledge of his harassment. It's the problem so many women face in this era when they're finally calling men out on their bullshit: it's the right thing to do, but chances are it will backfire and the only one who will be punished is you. So why rock the boat?

Margot Robbie as Kayla is the beating heart of the film. She's the unwitting innocent who loves Fox News, wants to be on air, goes to Ailes for career advice, and discovers that the boss expects favors in return. She may be a fictional character, but she represents all those unnamed women who thought Ailes would help them early in their careers and instead found themselves demeaned and humiliated. Robbie has a brilliant scene towards the end of the movie that will really tear your heart out and serves as a reminder of just how much women are traumatized and undone by sexual misconduct. And as counterpoint, you have Connie Britton as Beth Ailes, Roger's wife who will always stand by her man, make excuses, and turn a blind eye to his depravity. It's infuriating, but often behind every disgusting man, there stands a willfully complicit woman.

Bombshell is not a perfect movie. It is gimmicky and delights in a lot of stunt casting (Richard Kind as Rudy Guiliani was particularly hysterical) to represent its enormous cast of characters. But if you strip away the bombast, you have a tale as old as time. Thankfully this one had a happy ending, and it is a celebration of what can happen when women unite and say they won't accept the status quo. Carlson's lawsuit wouldn't have gone anywhere if 22 other women hadn't also stepped forward and dared to challenge a monster. This movie captures all the agony and indecision and the reasons women stay silent. It's a horrible burden to bear, but seems even worse when you have to share it, and as we all know, the outcome may not always be in your favor. While this was one of the rare cases where a man did face some consequences (Ailes was fired, but there were no criminal charges, and he received a $40 million severance package, sigh) this is certainly not a feel-good story. As my friend Laura said when we left the theater, "I feel icky and think I need to take a shower." The movie begins with a light comic tone, but ultimately, it's the story of a gross and dangerous man. We can cheer for the women who stood up to him, but it serves as a powerful reminder that there are still so many more women out there that need help.

The Morning Show: Meaningful Melodrama

When The Morning Show first premiered, I read countless reviews where critics were bingeing through it, not entirely sure why they were enjoying themselves so much when it was so bad, but unable to resist. So that's the spirit in which I started watching this show. And up until Episode 8 I agreed with that assessment. But after watching the final three episodes, I have to say, I have been genuinely praising and recommending this show to my friends. It snuck up on me out of nowhere.

The series focuses on a morning news show (like the Today Show) that was co-hosted by Alex Levy (Jennifer Aniston) and Mitch Kessler (Steve Carell) for fifteen years. But now, Mitch has been fired after accusations of sexual harassment (like the Today Show's Matt Lauer). Enter Bradley Jackson (Resse Witherspoon), an unknown local news journalist who via a viral video and complicated machinations suddenly finds herself in Manhattan and thrust into this viper's nest of network corporate drama and underhanded dealings. She is an idealistic crusader who butts heads with the world-weary Alex, who is simply trying to survive the storm of having her co-host and dear friend depart in such horrifying circumstances. And one must mention Billy Crudup as the new network executive trying to shake up the News Division; he is having the time of his life playing a complete oddball whose motivations are a constant mystery. As more details emerge about the culture of abuse at the network, you're never sure exactly how much everyone knew, who hid what details, and how to feel about it all. Until Episode 8.

Till Episode 8, the show was watchable but weird. Mitch Kessler is awful, but the show didn't seem to think he was THAT awful. He ranted and raved a lot about how everything he had done was perfectly consensual and he should not be compared to true predators like Harvey Weinstein. It made for uncomfortable viewing because you kept wondering if this show was trying to give this man a pass or try to say that some forms of harassment are more tolerable than others. It was all a bit icky and perplexing. All the promotional material for this show was also focused on the trinity of Aniston, Witherspoon, and Carell, and I didn't much care for either of those three characters. They were a bit one-note, forced to repeat the same dialogue and act in predictable ways most of the time. Aniston was probably doing the most interesting work, playing with her America's sweetheart image and subverting it in fun fashion - the character of Alex Levy comes off as somewhat passive and resigned to her fate right up until the moment she decides to unsheath her claws and all hell breaks loose. But the stakes are never quite that high when you're dealing with the trials and tribulations of the rich and famous.

But in Episode 8, the show, which had hitherto only been set in the aftermath of the Mitch Kessler harassment scandal, flashed back to a year ago when he still worked at The Morning Show and none of the ugly revelations had come to light. This episode gave you the chance to see what it's like when a workplace fosters a casually dismissive attitude towards sexual harassment. Nothing he did was extraordinary - slightly inappropriate remarks, the occasional leer, stuff that people let slide. It was a master class in how you tolerate this behavior when it's minor, staying silent, and thinking, "oh that's just how that guy is, it's fine." Until things escalated with a certain member of the staff. And watching that encounter, in all its horrific, triggering detail, is everything you need to know about why the #MeToo movement matters and what it is like for the women who have suffered in silence for so long. It was a powerful television moment for me, so I won't spoil any further details about who was involved and what happened. But I want the actress involved to win an Emmy, I would happily give the writer of that episode numerous accolades, and I don't ever want to watch it again because it made me feel so enraged, helpless, and sad.

The final two episodes deal with the aftermath of that incident. And they deal with them in The Morning Show's typically soapy and melodramatic way. But it is still powerful and rage-inducing stuff, and completely salvaged this show for me. It captured how women stay silent on so many minor transgressions until they are suddenly being subjected to something horrific but can't say anything because they have been conditioned for so long to shut up and take it. It was a surprisingly nuanced and brilliant storyline from a show that didn't seem like it was capable of much nuance up until that point. I have no idea what will happen in the second season; I suspect it will go back to being a bit hokey and ridiculous. But their attempt to reveal how the "gray areas" of sexual harassment aren't really that gray after all, is true service journalism. It's compelling TV, and while it took eight episodes to get there, it was worth it. 

The Rise of Skywalker: It’s All Over (For Now)

As the end credits rolled on Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker I thought, “Well, that was a Star Wars movie alright!” As I’ve mentioned in my reviews of the last two installments of this saga, I am a fairly clueless Star Wars watcher. I don’t remember anything that happened in any of the movies, apart from the famous bits that have been parodied so much in pop culture that they are seared into my brain. So, as always, if you’re looking for a detailed fan review, go elsewhere. All I can tell you is what I thought of this as a standalone movie.

It was fine. It was a sensory experience as all Star Wars movies are, and I will never fail to get goosebumps when the iconic John Williams score blares on screen at critical moments. Every single set piece was gorgeously shot and the action sequences are sublime. One that takes place against the backdrop of a roiling ocean is particularly thrilling and when you’re watching it on a giant screen in 3D, you cannot help but feel completely delighted by it all. This is a big budget film that knows exactly where to deploy all that budget: special effects and fight choreography. However, if you were expecting scintillating plot and character development, move along.

I legitimately laughed towards the end of the movie during a supposedly dramatic scene. Because it was so bizarre and melodramatic, and made me feel like I was watching a bad Bollywood film. Let’s just say you should be prepared for multiple deaths and fake outs, and for absolutely everything that happens to feel portended since the very first Star Wars movie came out. The movie feels exactly like the trilogies that came before, echoing the same structure and beats that made those other films so popular. It makes sense, why mess with a winning formula? But that’s precisely why this film has been getting some lackluster reviews. It's a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that showcases what wondrous things movie magic can create, but you’re not going to get any deeper emotional resonance or satisfaction.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker does exactly what it set out to do: wrap up this trilogy with a neat little bow and confirm that our heroes are heroic, their motivations are similar to all the Jedis before them, and that the Force continues to be strong with this franchise. As a JJ Abrams fan, I most enjoyed the fact that he continues to cast actors from his TV shows - it wouldn’t be a JJ Abrams film without Greg Grunberg popping in for a cameo. This movie will make a bazillion dollars, fan reactions will be polarized (I already have one friend who liked it and another who despised it), and then in a few years’ time, yet another trilogy will be announced and we’ll do this dance all over again. I’ll remember even less plot, but as long as they have that opening crawl and that Williams score, I’ll comfortably settle in and go along for the ride to a galaxy far, far away. 

Movie Roundup: The Irishman, Harriet, Frozen II

I watched a lot of movies over the past two months but never got around to blogging about them. As such, here are some rapid reviews of movies that are already up for some Golden Globes but didn't sufficiently pique my interest to merit their own posts. There are only so many hours in the day, you know?

The Irishman: Everyone has heard about this movie. But how many of you have sat through three-and-a-half hours of it on Netflix (or an actual movie theater, God help you)? This movie was emphatically not made for me. I don't care about mob movies, I am not invested in these particular actors, and given that we already know the whole thing is a biography of the man who will eventually kill Jimmy Hoffa, I found that the journey was not worth the destination. Also, I was confused at how Italian everyone seemed when they're not even playing Italians. This was particularly clear when Pacino's character went on a rant about how useless Italians are and my brain exploded. Unlike some, I was not thrown by the de-aging technology (I think you need to see it on the big screen to be quite as weirded out by it as some people seemed to be), but I did notice that the actors still moved like seventy-year-olds even if they were playing thirty. So this movie isn't worth it for that gimmick either.

I was simply bored, and I know this is a deeply unpopular critical opinion. I'll be the first to confess that because I was watching at home on Netflix, I couldn't pay attention like I may have in a movie theater. But I cannot imagine my experience would have been that much improved. There was just too much extraneous material, too much luxuriating in this genre that I don't care for, much too much of everything. Nope, I did not like this movie, but I promise, I won't judge you if it's your jam. We just need to agree that we are very different people. And when it wins a bunch of awards, I'll heave a sigh and move on.

Harriet: A fairly straightforward biopic about Harriet Tubman, this movie was a great history lesson for me. I have always known her name, but never really read up on her story, so to spend two hours in the company of Cynthia Erivo playing this American icon was great. Erivo's performance is the standout aspect of the film - the script plods along in fairly predictable fashion, but Erivo imbues Harriet with all the nobility, strength, and power that the woman embodied in real life. Tubman's life story is so incredibly extraordinary and courageous, and this movie tells that story competently, alongside a great supporting cast, including Leslie Odom Jr. and Janelle Monae, who as usual, is the woman you wish you could be. Overall, I wasn't bored for a second when I watched this movie, but I wasn't shouting from the rooftops for others to watch it either. Erivo should be honored with some acting nominations (perhaps even one for Best Original Song at the end!), but otherwise, treat this movie like a very important history lesson, and not a cinematic highlight of 2019.

Frozen II: It took me FOREVER to finally get to the movie theater and watch this movie. And it was...fine. I didn't love the plot and I wasn't intrigued by any of the songs (frankly, the only thing I have ever loved about the Frozen soundtrack has been the Sami music and I would be perfectly happy if the entire movie was set to that alone). I definitely found some of the themes to be surprisingly dark and existential - maybe all animated movies are like this and you only pick up on it when you're an adult, but I certainly feel like Disney and Pixar have been leaning into the abyss lately. There was a lot of talk about change and growing older and finding purpose, and I imagine all the children in the audience just went, "haha, look at the silly snowman!" However, the absolute joy of this movie is in the quality of animation. I never tire of seeing how well we can animate water and Frozen II is an endless parade of raging seas, water droplets, ice crystals, and jaw-dropping beauty. It's a glorious ode to Nature, and I left feeling like I needed to take a hike in the Poconos right away. Also, I love every single outfit that Elsa was wearing. I deeply object to the unrealistic skinny Disney princess body type, but damn those women wear gorgeous gowns. So yes, go see this movie, but mostly to marvel at the scenery. 

Marriage Story: Divorce Sucks

My main takeaway after watching Marriage Story is that this movie makes my heart hurt. I'm also very glad it is on Netflix because I definitely needed a break halfway through to pause and recover from the onslaught of emotional turmoil. It's a brilliant movie, but boy does it take a lot out of you.

This is a movie about a couple getting a divorce. However, you cannot tell a complete story about a divorce without first getting into the story of their marriage. Over the course of two hours, you learn about how Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) met, why they fell in love, what mistakes were made, and why they are now getting a divorce. It is messy and complicated, made all the more messy by the custody challenges over their eight-year-old son, and the introduction of rapacious lawyers (deliciously played by Laura Dern and Ray Liotta) who will engage in any amount of mudslinging to ensure a bigger payout for their client. Nicole and Charlie are decent people, but their relationship couldn't stand the test of time, and watching it unravel on screen is incredibly painful.

The performances are sublime. Johansson and Driver give it their all - Driver in particular is delivering a performance I wasn't quite expecting - and the movie excels in the long scenes where the two of them stop dancing around and just lay into each other about why their marriage has fallen apart. It is raw, gutting stuff, and full kudos are due to writer-director Noah Baumbach who drew inspiration from his own divorce and that of his parents. In recent weeks, many reviews of this film have focused on people taking sides to determine if Nicole or Charlie is more at fault for the dissolution of the marriage. As far as I'm concerned, Baumbach plays it straight down the middle, assigning blame to no one, but making it clear that each party had a role to play in how things ended up.

This movie is also a harrowing look at what goes into a divorce. The legal ramifications, the endless hoops you have to jump through, trying to protect your child in the middle of it all. There is so much bureaucracy in the midst of all the agony and it legitimately seems like one of the worst experiences a person can go through. Perhaps what makes it so hard in this case is that both parties still love and respect each other - they just can't be married anymore. When there's rancor and bitterness, it's easier to cut your losses and move on, but there's nothing easy about this particular couple's situation.

Marriage Story is a significant awards contender this year and for all the right reasons. The script is searing and impeccable, the actors deliver gut-punching performances, and the overall movie stirs you up inside and won't let you settle down. That probably doesn't sound ideal for light weekend fare, but if you're looking for a movie that will break your heart just a little bit, go right ahead.

Queen & Slim: Keep Running

Queen & Slim is one of those rare things - a film based on a wholly original screenplay. Written by Lena Waithe and directed by Melina Matsoukas (in her feature film directorial debut!), it feels like a breath of fresh air, a new perspective from new storytellers rather than tired old tropes from the people who tend to dominate cinematic storytelling.

The movie is the story of a black couple (whose real names you never learn until the end of the movie, but we can refer to them as the eponymous Queen and Slim), who essentially have the worst first date ever. They meet on Tinder, have a somewhat awkward dinner, and then, on the drive home, get pulled over by a white cop. This cop is not one of the good ones. He is spoiling for a fight and when he unnecessarily escalates matters and pulls a gun, Queen, who is a lawyer, gets riled up and tries to defend Slim. This only leads to a further breakdown in communication and culminates in shots fired. The cop is killed, and the couple are now on the run from the law, because after all, no one is going to believe two black people acted in self defense against a racist cop.

The movie unspools in a series of vignettes as they meet various people across the country while they try to figure out their next steps. No spoilers because the journey is the destination. You need to watch the growing bond between these two strangers who have been thrust together in such violent circumstances and also watch how the world around them reacts once the news goes viral. This is certainly a #BlackLivesMatter movie, but in a wonderfully nuanced way. There are black people on various sides of the issue: those who think the couple did the right thing and those who think they are glorifying murder. There are white people who are blindly racist, and then others who are willing to empathize with their plight. Lena Waithe's script explores all the gray areas of what is oftentimes portrayed as a very black-and-white issue and it makes for compelling and thought-provoking cinema.

Of course, it helps if your leading man is Daniel Kaluuya. This is a man who was born to be an actor. Every time the camera lingers on his face, you will find it impossible to look away. And relative newcomer Jodie Turner-Smith is a perfect counterpoint. She is a cool, statuesque woman and it's refreshing to see a movie where the leading lady can wear heels and tower over the man when ordinarily you're always hearing stories of how actresses have to stand in holes so the leading man can look taller (yes, I'm looking at you, Tom Cruise). Slim is all emotion while Queen is all logic (another interesting reversal of traditional gender stereotypes) and the two actors work in perfect harmony. These characters start off as two very different people in overwhelmingly complicated circumstances and it's a fraught and epic romance. Also, despite the very dark and dramatic elements of this story, there are some wonderfully light flourishes that remind you that Lena Waithe is also an accomplished comedy writer. This is a serious film, but you will still chuckle at certain moments. Because that's human beings for you - even in the midst of tragedy we can find something to laugh at.

Queen & Slim is a fascinating movie for our times. It is viciously current and relevant, features great actors, and has a brilliant script executed by a brilliant director. It makes perfect sense that it feels so fresh and new; it is written and directed by fresh and new (and female!) filmmakers. This movie continues to be an argument for why it is so important to bring more diverse voices into Hollywood. Big surprise: when new people come in, they tell new and exciting stories that make it a joy to go to the movies. 

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood: We Were All Children Once

Prior to watching A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, I had seen the trailer about twenty times in the movie theater. Usually, I don't pay attention to trailers I've seen before, or I get annoyed about having to watch one for the umpteenth time. But every time the trailer for this movie came on, I would perk right up, and without fail, it would make me a little teary-eyed and wistful. When Mr. Rogers would talk about dealing with your feelings by playing all the lowest notes of a piano at once and go "Bong!" while the music swelled to a crescendo, my heart would soar. It never got old. Therefore, I couldn't wait to see this movie. And while it wasn't exactly what I had expected, I still came away from it feeling like there will never be anyone in the world quite like Mr. Rogers.

Tom Hanks plays Fred Rogers, the children's television show host whose sole aim in life was to teach children how to handle the world around them and process their feelings in healthy ways. He was a brilliant man (you can watch the marvelous documentary Won't You Be My Neighbor? to see him in action) and Tom Hanks' portrayal certainly does him justice. Hanks disappears into the role, capturing Mr. Rogers' slow cadence and very deliberate, methodical way of speaking, always carefully choosing his words and simply overflowing with compassion for his fellow humans and enthusiasm for the everyday wonders of the world. However, this movie focuses less on the Mr. Rogers we're used to, the one who dealt with children. Instead, writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster have adapted a 1998 Esquire article by Tom Junod who did a celebrity profile of Fred Rogers entitled, "Can You Say...Hero?" As such, the movie focuses more on the character of Lloyd Vogel (played by the excellent Matthew Rhys), the journalist who has been forced to write a "puff piece" on Fred Rogers and thinks this is all a waste of his time. Of course, it is not.

I wasn't sure how I felt about the movie taking this tangent - the trailer was far more centered on Mr. Rogers, while the movie spends a lot more time on Lloyd and the family drama that has led him to be a somewhat bitter and cynical soul. But it eventually won me over. With Marielle Heller's deft direction, we see how Mr. Rogers' gentle but wise teachings were not just something for children to learn but applied universally to us all. It's so easy to watch an episode of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood and dismiss the puppets and cardigans and assorted pageantry as being "kids stuff." But there is nothing childish about the underlying kindness and profound psychological wisdom that is earnestly being dispensed. At one point in the film, Mr. Rogers talks about death; he says that people don't like to talk about it, but "anything mentionable is manageable." It's a valuable reminder that you cannot manage your feelings until you talk about them. But he was also a man who took pleasure in silence and like the documentary, this movie features his common request for people to take a minute of silence "to think about all the people who loved you into being." The movie goes completely silent during this minute, and you would have to have a heart of stone to not immediately start thinking of those people in your life and tear up. 

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a wonderful movie about a wonderful man. Most importantly, it also humanizes Fred Rogers a bit more than the documentary did - there's a brief exchange where Lloyd is talking to Joanne, Mr. Rogers' wife, and she quickly disabuses him of the notion that her husband is a saint. She talks about how hard he works to keep his emotions in check and that he is a human being just like anyone else. There's also an exchange between Mr. Rogers and Lloyd where he admits that he has had difficulties raising his two sons, who often didn't want to acknowledge that their father was Mr. Rogers. The final scenes of the movie feature an evocative moment to remind us that while he certainly was one of the best the human race had to offer, it wasn't something that came to him effortlessly. All of the tips and tricks he tried to share with the rest of us were things he used himself. I left this movie still thinking Mr. Rogers was one of the greatest men who ever lived, but I also left it thinking that maybe, if I play all the lowest notes on the piano, I too can learn how to be a good neighbor. 

Knives Out: A Perfect Mystery

Knives Out is the ideal Thanksgiving movie. The family of a famous crime novelist gets together for dinner, the patriarch dies in an apparent suicide but now the police suspect murder, and everyone is gathered back together in an Agatha Christie-esque black comedy to solve the mystery. It is simply sublime.

Written and directed by the astonishing Rian Johnson, this movie is a wonder. It is a twisty and intricately-plotted murder mystery that could easily be written up as a cozy and compelling novel. You are fed all the clues throughout the movie and have just as good a chance of solving the mystery as the private detective who has been anonymously hired to solve the case. But you will be having so much fun watching Daniel Craig swan around doing his best Foghorn Leghorn impression that you’ll be happy to leave the detecting up to him.

Aside from Craig, who plays the fabulously named Benoit Blanc, this movie boasts an all-star cast including Jamie Lee Curtis, Toni Collette, Don Johnson, Chris Evans, Lakeith Stanfield, Christopher Plummer, Michael Shannon, and the marvelous Ana de Armas, who plays the dead man’s kindhearted nurse (she is from Paraguay, Uruguay, or Brazil, depending on which clueless member of the family you speak to) and has to deal with the shenanigans of this insane family while harboring secrets of her own about what happened that night. Each character is weird and wacky in a very specific way; everyone has a motive, everyone is hiding something, and the plot keep twisting in on itself like some impossible Möbius strip until Blanc finally brings everyone together in a room and solves the mystery in a manner that would make Hercule Poirot proud.

Knives Out is a cinematic tour de force. The production design of the creepy house where the death takes place is impressive, with every corner stuffed with something eye-catching that contains a potential clue. The cast is clearly having the time of their life, playing up heightened emotions and extreme melodrama as this family turns out to be spectacularly dysfunctional. And the script is a bewildering beauty, crammed with jokes but also containing a deeply satisfying murder mystery that will keep you guessing until the final second. It reminded me of Clue, except it takes its central mystery very seriously and unravels it with aplomb. This is a movie that bears repeat viewing - even once you have the answers, you can re-watch to find all the clues you missed the first time around, giggle at all the jokes, and luxuriate in the warm glow of a movie that is absolutely perfect in every way. 

21 Bridges: Tense & Thrilling

Every year, a movie comes out that makes me particularly thrilled about living in New York. This year, that movie is 21 Bridges. The title is in reference to the 21 bridges around Manhattan (at one point this movie was called 17 Bridges, until someone went on Google Maps and found four more bridges - yeah I don't understand either), and the entire movie takes place over the course of one night when the NYPD is out hunting a pair of cop killers. It is tense, bloody, and riveting.

Chadwick Boseman plays Andre Davis, an NYPD detective with a personal vendetta. His father was a cop who was killed in the line of duty when Andre was thirteen, so he has become somewhat notorious for finding cop killers and bringing them to justice by any means necessary. When eight cops are killed at midnight by two robbers during a bungled cocaine heist in Brooklyn, Andre is dispatched to the scene of the crime and comes up with the audacious plan to shut down Manhattan for five hours. That's where the shooters are, and he's gonna get them before they can escape the island.

What follows is an elaborate game of cat-and-mouse where we get to watch Andre and Frankie Burns, the narcotics officer assigned to be his partner in this chase (played by the wonderful Sienna Miller), hunt down the two criminals as they try to sell their drugs and come up with an exit strategy. By the way, those two criminals are played by Stephan James and Taylor Kitsch, who are both excellent. James, in particular, is doing wonderful work as a man who has gotten in way over his head and is desperate to escape the tangled web of deceit that this robbery has uncovered. When he and Boseman are on screen together, there are so many layers to unpack and it's a powerful acting showcase.

The screenplay by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is twisty and fun. There is nothing straightforward about this case and there are complications and red herrings that build up as Andre pursues his prey. Under Brian Kirk's direction, we get a fast-paced action thriller that is endlessly entertaining and feels like a throwback to when action movies could be fun escapism. I mean sure, there are a load of lessons you could take away about corruption, racism, the tenuous relationship between the NYPD and the citizens of New York. Or you could choose to ignore all that and happily stare at all the beautiful shots of New York at night or in the early dawn.

21 Bridges is a standard cop thriller elevated by dynamic performances from a great cast, a delicious script, and confident, no-nonsense direction. It is efficient, wrapping up in less than two hours, even though the elaborate plot makes you feel like you've watched a whole miniseries. It is exciting and compelling, a perfect way to enliven a boring weekend and remember how much fun it can be to go to the movies. 

Charlie’s Angels: Throw Your Hands up at Me

Charlie’s Angels is delightful. I don’t care what reviews you’ve seen or what nonsense you’ve heard from the masses. It is a movie about three ladies who get into car chases and high-stakes action sequences where they take down bad guys with flair and I. AM. HERE. FOR. THIS.

Written, directed, and produced by Elizabeth Banks, who also plays a meaty supporting role as Bosley, the Angels’ handler (as if she didn't have enough to do already), the movie is a fun thrill ride. Is the plot really important? Nope. The Angels have to chase down some people who have stolen a weapon that could assassinate people anywhere in the world and cause utter chaos. You know, the usual. What is important are the women playing the Angels this time around. We’ve got Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, and Ella Balinska, all of whom have interesting back stories, wildly different skill sets, but the same level of badassery that makes it so much fun to cheer for them for two hours straight.

The showing I went to had a row of preteen girls who were all excited to see it. Granted they were super annoying and seemed to be engaged in all manner of offscreen drama about who was friends with whom and how the seating arrangements should be constantly shuffled, but putting that aside, I was so glad that this movie existed for them. I was thirteen when the 2000 film starring Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore came out, and I remember going to the theater to see it with my girlfriends and loving it so much. We also sang Destiny's Child's "Independent Women" that was on the movie soundtrack for about a year. Nineteen years later, I saw this reboot with one of my best friends from college and we had just as much fun. And this time around a woman directed the movie - progress!

This movie is fun. That’s what it genuinely aspires to be. It is a bunch of women in wonderfully choreographed fight scenes having a bonkers good time and you would have to be a complete Scrooge to object to any of it. It’s not some philosophical feminist treatise, it’s Charlie’s Angels. But it is unapologetically feminine and fabulous, and we could always use more movies like this. Every generation of teenage girls needs an action movie that speaks to their power; and so do I. Keep 'em coming ladies.

Ford v Ferrari: Start Your Engines

I saw Ford v Ferrari with two friends who both complained it was too long. I, on the other hand, wasn’t bored for a second. Maybe it’s because I grew up on interminable Bollywood films, or maybe it’s because I really needed a movie that scratched the itch left from my days watching Top Gear, but you can firmly put me down as a fan of this fabulous movie.

Based on a true story, the film follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and his racing driver partner Ken Miles (Christian Bale). In 1963, they were tasked by Henry Ford II (the original Ford’s grandson) to design a race car that would beat Enzo Ferrari’s entry at the grueling 24-hour Le Mans race in France. Shelby was the only American driver to have won that race (in 1959), but having stepped down from racing due to a heart condition, Miles was his choice as the only man who could replicate his success. The two men had a deep love and understanding for cars and racing and the movie glories in the details of how they go about taking a Ford, known for being ugly but dependable, and turning it into something that could beat the sleek handmade Ferraris that had won Le Mans for five years in a row.

There is a great deal of friction caused by corporate bureaucracy, with the two pioneers butting heads with Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas, who plays the greatest asshole you’ve ever seen), a Ford vice president who is in charge of the racing division but cares more about marketing than cars. While they have the support of Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal), there are plenty of machinations required to placate Beebe and Ford and those continue to dog them until their final victory lap. This is also a story about the great friendship between Shelby and Miles, a Texan and a Brit who completely understood each other and had each others' backs during a stressful but exhilarating period in their lives. It's a bromance for the ages. And let's be real, these men are pretty easy on the eyes too.

Ford v Ferrari is a self-assured and sizzling movie. The racing scenes have you on the edge of your seat, and off the racetrack, the interpersonal dynamics and marvelous performances from Bale and Damon will keep you chuckling and rooting for our heroes till the bitter end. It’s a great story to tell, with a cast that is more than well-equipped to tell it, and in the hands of director James Mangold, it leaps off the screen and stays compelling for two and a half hours. Do you like racing? Do you like snappy dialogue? Do you like a tale of underdogs trying to stick it to the man? Then what more do you need - watch this movie!

The Good Place: How to Be Human

I love The Good Place. From the moment Episode 1 aired to now, when it's six episodes into its fourth and final season, this is a show that provides a weekly dose of epiphany and humor. I was so busy enjoying it that I completely forgot to blog about it, but the events of this week have led me to rectify that grievous error.

Come to think of it, this might be why I haven't written about the show before: I can't fully tell you what it's about. In Episode 1, you are introduced to Eleanor Shellstrop (the ever-charming Kristen Bell), a woman who died on Earth and has just woken up in the "Good Place," where she is greeted by Michael (the even-more-charming Ted Danson). Michael is the "architect" of the particular neighborhood of the Good Place she has been assigned to; think of him as a low-level angel. He shows her around, introduces her to other residents, including the silent monk, Jianyu (Manny Jacinto), British socialite, Tahani (Jameela Jamil), and the ethics professor, Chidi (William Jackson Harper), who is supposed to be her soulmate in the afterlife. There's also Janet (D'Arcy Carden), an artificial being who knows the answers to everything and can provide residents with anything they want at a moment's notice. It's all very uplifting and grand. But things start going wrong and Michael seems perplexed by how his carefully constructed neighborhood is falling to pieces. At the end of the episode, Eleanor runs to Chidi and confesses - she has been mistaken for another woman named Eleanor Shellstrop, who was a truly good and decent citizen and deserved to be here, unlike her, an "Arizona trashbag" who lived her life as a largely amoral and insensitive woman. She thinks her presence has resulted in all the chaos in the Good Place, and she needs to fix it so she doesn't get sent to the Bad Place.

That was just a description of the first episode. Every following episode ends with similar cliffhangers and twisty revelations, and by the end of the first season, the show ended on such a bombshell that it returned in a completely rebooted second season. This trend has continued each year - there is always something so drastic that happens in the season finale that you might as well be watching a brand new show next year. But the one constant is that this is a show that is deeply invested in the question of what it means to be good. How can human beings do the right thing? What, in fact, IS the right thing? How should we all be treating each other to ensure we can all get into the Good Place?

I listen to the Good Place podcast every week - if you are just starting to watch, I highly recommend bingeing the podcast alongside the show because it will so deepen your appreciation for the thought and artistry that goes into every sentence and every prop. In the words of the podcast's host, Marc Evan Jackson (who plays the demon Shaun on the show), "This is the smartest dumbest show on television." It is concerned with high-concept philosophical quandaries, but unafraid to also throw in low-brow fart jokes as the situation demands. It is impossibly funny, and impossibly thought-provoking at the same time. Creator Mike Schur (who also gave us Parks & Recreation and Brooklyn Nine-Nine) is responsible for all this creative goodness, and the writers room on this show is overflowing with genuinely hilarious and thoughtful people who can craft the perfect pun alongside the most tangled ethical dilemma. This is a show that also employs philosophers as consultants - one of them is Dr. Todd May, and I ended up reading his book, A Decent Life: Morality for the Rest of Us, a few months ago. How many TV shows lead you to read books on moral philosophy? And have a companion podcast that ends with the host telling listeners to "go do something good?" It's all absurd and wonderful.

This week, I faced a terrible situation at work where I inadvertently upset someone who then demanded an apology. I stewed over this all night, angry and mortified, unclear on how to proceed. But the morning after, I watched the latest episode of The Good Place, "A Chip Driver Mystery," which bizarrely featured a storyline where a person was being made to apologize for something and was being a total douche about it. At the end of the episode, Michael made the following observation: "What matters isn't if people are good or bad. What matters is if they're trying to be better today than they were yesterday.". Upon hearing that, all my cares melted away. I went to the office, made all my apologies, and had a (somewhat) clear conscience.

It's a lesson we need to tell ourselves all the time. Human beings are messy and complicated creatures. We do a LOT of stupid things. But we have to try. As long as we are trying to be better than we were yesterday, we have a shot at making this a better and happier world for everyone. Meanwhile, The Good Place, a magical half-hour sitcom, is out there, trying to make us all better human beings. If you haven't watched it yet, do yourself a favor. Watch it. And then go do something good. 

Jojo Rabbit: A Complicated Comedy

Jojo Rabbit is a satire about Nazi Germany. That alone should tell you to expect some extreme tonal whiplash. Based on Christine Leunen's novel, Caging Skies, writer-director Taika Waititi has created a movie that genuinely beggars belief. I was raucously amused at the beginning, squirming and uncomfortable in the middle, and in the final scene, I suddenly started crying, because it turned out the entire movie had been about the triumph of the human spirit. It's a joyous ending that one would not expect from a movie about Nazis, and I was completely bowled over by how the hell Waititi manage to pull off this impossible film.

The wonderful Roman Griffin Davis stars as ten-year-old Johannes "Jojo" Betzler, an extremely patriotic German boy whose imaginary friend is Adolf Hitler (played by Taika Waititi himself). Jojo cannot wait to attend his Hitler Youth training camp with his best friend Yorki (Archie Yates, an adorably pudgy British kid who is not remotely trying to do a German accent in this movie, unlike everyone else who is at least giving it a shot). At the training camp, he ends up with the derogatory nickname of Jojo Rabbit when he turns out to be too soft-hearted to kill a rabbit. But this doesn't dampen his ardor, and despite having to leave the camp for other reasons, he is determined to do his best for the Nazi war effort. Unfortunately, his zeal takes a a bit of a hit when he discovers his mother, Rosie (played by the always dependable Scarlett Johansson), has a secret that his good friend Adolf wouldn't be too thrilled about.

No further spoilers (though you can probably make an educated guess). The relationship between Jojo and Rosie is remarkable, and it builds to a crescendo that packs quite an emotional wallop. But the relationship between Jojo and imaginary Hitler? That is just crazy. It's so hilarious at the beginning, with Hitler playing a hype man to Jojo and encouraging him to believe in himself, not be too scared about going off to training camp, and giving him encouraging advice on how to be the best Nazi he can be. But as the movie progresses, and Jojo's Nazi ideology starts to wane, Hitler goes off the rails, screaming loudly, demanding loyalty, and reminding us all that it's always the men who seem charming at first, who become the scary monsters later on. The movie opens with a German version of I Want To Hold Your Hand and propaganda shots of people screaming in adulation (akin to Beatlemania) when they see the Fuhrer. The gradual evolution of that "fun" Hitler to the evil one is so educational; this is how dictators win your trust and then start the Holocaust.

The final shot of the movie also features a German version of a popular English song; that music cue was perfect, and Waititi continues to be a filmmaker who always picks the best song for every occasion. More importantly, that song is used for a life-affirming, spectacular scene. I was honestly not enjoying the film halfway through - the comedy had become too black, the stakes had gotten too real, and the satire had taken on a razor sharp edge that hurt too much. All the nasty propaganda about Jews and how they have horns and can read people's minds is supposed to expose how dumb and awful the Nazis were. But listening to that endless Jew-bashing for more than an hour gets wearisome, and you want it all to end. Thankfully, that ending is pitch perfect. It is not a happy ending, because there's nothing happy about what happened in Nazi Germany, but it is a reminder that evil was defeated and life goes on.

I loved Jojo Rabbit, but believe me, it was touch and go there for a while. It is an extremely polarizing movie as it deals with painful and incendiary subject matter. Its tone is wildly uneven, which is sort of the point, and even the actors are wildly inconsistent with their German accents, which is also the point. No one is striving for accuracy here, they just want to make fun of the Nazis. But along the way, Taika Waititi has created an oddly extraordinary movie that somehow manages to find the grace and beauty of humanity against the backdrop of one of the most evil periods of human history. 

Parasite: Horrifyingly Hilarious and Hilariously Horrifying

When I finished watching Parasite, I felt like I had just finished reading a very dense and brilliant novel, brimming with interesting characters, captivating settings, and a bananas plot that relentlessly delivered for two hours straight. It was a deeply satisfying experience; apparently, I need more South Korean films in my life.

Parasite unanimously won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in May. So it’s already a critical darling and I went into it knowing that people I respect have a pretty favorable opinion of this movie. Critics can be notoriously weird and I don’t agree with them all the time, but I fell for this movie hook, line, and sinker. The friends I saw it with though, who were Korean and don’t watch a lot of movies, weren’t as taken with it as I was. So it’s definitely an acquired taste.

What’s the movie about? I wish I could tell you, but it’s so important you go into it without knowing too much. Watching the craziness unfurl delicately and then insanely on screen is what makes this a true theatrical delight. Let the title of this review be your guide - this is a movie that is very funny, but also extremely dark and does have some bloody horror elements towards the end. I won’t say why, but there’s a twist halfway through that leads to some extreme violence and an ambiguous ending that I loved because you can interpret it as you would like depending on how optimistic or pessimistic you're feeling that day. And I know that’s generally seen as a cop out in any kind of storytelling (I personally hate any novel that doesn’t end properly), but this movie completely earns its ending and doesn’t make you regret watching anything that came before.

For those who insist on knowing some basic plot, here it is. The movie follows a Korean family in Seoul that lives in a semi-basement (i.e an almost underground apartment where they get a sliver of light from a window but also risk getting peed on by drunk men who like to urinate on the sidewalks at night). They are struggling to get by and work a variety of odd jobs, but when the son gets a chance to tutor the daughter of an exceedingly wealthy family, the family’s fortunes start to reverse, and what follows is an extremely funny hour of deception followed by a grisly hour of comeuppance. It’s a dark movie about what people in dire straits will do to get ahead in life as well as a look at how the wealthy treat their servants and engender the resentment and disparities that pervade society today. Every actor in this film is phenomenal, offering up a nuanced performance that leads you to feel genuinely conflicted about who exactly to root for (the answer is no one).

Parasite is such a genre-bending, wonderful movie. It’s like nothing you’ve seen before. Don’t be fooled by the subtitles and critical acclaim - this is not the stuffy and dramatic kind of "foreign film" that generally becomes awards bait. Instead, this is a refreshing and ridiculous film that signals writer-director Bong Joon Ho might be one of the most creative filmmakers working today. From here on out, I am not missing any movie that this brilliant weirdo makes.

Judy: A Swan Song

Judy is a familiar tale about an aging actress who has long struggled with the perils of fame. While nothing about this movie feels particularly fresh or novel (sadly, such stories are a tale as old as time), what is marvelous about it is the central performance by Renee Zellweger. Give the lady an Oscar nomination, she has earned it.

Set in 1969, the movie tells the story of Judy's London tour when she was in her late forties, a desperate attempt to get some money so she could provide a stable home for her children and not lose custody to her third husband, Sidney Luft (played by Rufus Sewell, who I love and never get to see much of anymore). The film also features flashbacks to Judy Garland's days as a child actress on the set of The Wizard of Oz. Young Judy is played wonderfully by Darci Shaw, and through these flashbacks we get to see the cruel way she was treated by Louis B. Mayer and her handlers. She was a work horse, denied any semblance of a childhood, and was also fed a constant diet of drugs to suppress her appetite, keep her thin, and make her sleep, all of which led to her crippling addictions and anxieties in later life.

The Zellweger performance is incandescent and she fully inhabits this role. Twitchy and nervous, both untrusting and naive, she captures all of the woman's complexities, and then walks on to the stage to also capture her voice. At this point in her life, Judy's voice wasn't great - she had undergone a tracheotomy two years prior following a suicide attempt, and all the drinking, pills, smoking, and exhaustion had certainly taken their toll. All this to say that Zellweger isn't meant to be delivering a bravura singing performance. But what she does deliver is the dramatic flair and love of performing that always drove Judy Garland despite all her neuroses. When she takes the stage, she isn't just singing a song - she is singing her heart out. At the end of the movie, when we finally get to that long-awaited performance of Somewhere Over the Rainbow, I defy you not to feel moved. 

Judy is not a masterpiece. Adapted from the stage play, End of the Rainbow, by Peter Quilter, it has its melodramatic beats and flights of fancy. But that central performance anchors the whole thing and keeps you riveted to the screen for two hours. Special kudos are also due to costume designer Jany Temime, and the hair and makeup designer Jeremy Woodhead, because their transformative work are integral to making this performance work. Overall, it's a standard biopic that is elevated by a brilliant actress. Whether you're a classic film buff or not, Judy Garland was a star, and you know her music even if you don't know the woman. This movie is well worth your time. 

Joker: No One Will Save Us

I just walked out of the theater and am trying to process my feelings about Joker. Mostly, it was disturbing. Way too disturbing. I thought the years of watching Game of Thrones would have inured me to a certain amount of violence, but nope. This movie features some pretty brutal murders that almost made me throw up. That's not a ringing endorsement. 

I will not be watching this movie again. But there were still elements of it that I found breathtaking. Such is the power of the big screen - a movie can literally make you nauseous, but you still come out of the theater humming "Send in the Clowns." Speaking of which, I cannot improve upon Glen Weldon's observations in his NPR review of this movie where he talks about how unlikely the scene is where a group of Wall Street bros start singing Send in the Clowns before they beat up Arthur Fleck (that's the Joker's real name before he takes on his manic persona). That scene was meant to be violent but it just made me giggle, because it's true, those are not the type of men who are well-versed in the music and lyrics of Stephen Sondheim. The movie also ends with Frank Sinatra's version of the song, which I had never heard, and it only disturbed me further, because that song is famously sung by a woman. Sure, Sinatra made it popular, but it is a gorgeous, heart-wrenching song, and the Judi Dench version is the one I love. By choosing Sinatra's version, the movie makes its intentions known. This is a movie concerned with bombast and polish rather than ragged emotion and substance. Sure Sinatra sounds great, but he certainly doesn't capture the emotion or context of that song at all. Likewise, Joker looks great, but boy does it not want to think too deeply about what it's saying.

Joaquin Phoenix's performance is the saving grace of this film. The man has committed himself body and soul to inhabiting this character, and while I wanted to shout, "why have you gone to all this trouble for a comic book movie," I have to give him his due. He is shirtless a fair bit in the film and this seems to be expressly for the purpose of revealing his shrunken form, with his ribs sticking out so alarmingly that I wanted to feed him a burger every time he was on screen. It's not pleasant to look at. And then of course, there's the famous clown makeup. Arthur starts off as an ordinary clown, but the gradual evolution to the Joker look that we all know (and love?) is brilliantly done. His eye makeup is always running, his red lips are always evolving (first with lipstick and greasepaint, then by other more sinister means). And that laugh. He has an uncontrollable laugh due to neurological damage, a sort of Tourette's-like tic that is deeply unnerving and gets him into trouble all the time. It is a high-pitched cackle that trails off like a cat choking on a hairball and it is awful and mesmerizing at the same time. 

There are also clever bits of plot. There were story beats that made me think, "that makes absolutely no sense, why on earth would these characters behave this way," and then it got explained and I felt less icky about it all. But this movie was so clearly written and produced by a bunch of men. The Joker is a villain, and the movie doesn't try to make him out to be a good guy, but it certainly does try to place his actions in the context of, "he's only being heinous to the people who treated him poorly," which doesn't quite fly when he's stabbing people in the eye with scissors. Yeah, that's the bit that made me nauseous, spoiler alert.

Joker is trying very hard to be some kind of artistic, dark take on the superhero genre, but it has veered way off course. The recent SNL parody was a perfect satire, highlighting the self-importance and aggrandisement of this comic book villain. It's a great character but trying to delve into his origins is an exercise in futility because it feels like an attempt to excuse thoroughly inexcusable behavior. Director and co-writer Todd Phillips certainly hasn't done himself any favors lately when he proclaimed comedy was dead and people were too sensitive and woke to appreciate jokes anymore. But I don't think woke people are going to be able to stand this dramatic movie either. In our current day and age, there are so many awful men who are going to watch this film and come away thinking that the Joker is a hero. It is deeply irresponsible and pointless, and while I certainly wasn't bored while watching this movie, all I wanted to do when I came home was to cleanse my soul with A Little Night Music. Send in the clowns, but please take the Joker away. 

Unbelievable: Women Seeking Justice

Unbelievable is another show I put off watching for a while because I thought it would be too painful to watch. But yet again, given the rave reviews, I logged onto Netflix and was blown away. I certainly took plenty of breaks in between episodes at the beginning as it was quite an infuriating watch. However, towards the end, I found myself racing through the last few episodes, desperate to see justice finally done and breathe a sigh of (somewhat) relief.

The first episode opens in 2008 with the rape of a young woman named Marie Adler (Kaitlyn Dever). Just 18 years old, Marie is a former foster child who recently moved into her own apartment. In the middle of the night, a man breaks into her house through an open window, threatens her with her own knife, ties her up with her shoelaces, blindfolds her, rapes her, takes photos, and vanishes. Marie calls up a friend, her former foster mother, and the police, and what follows is a painful exploration of what a rape victim needs to endure in the aftermath of an already harrowing experience. She has to keep repeating her story to multiple cops, then at the hospital to the nurse while she undergoes the indignities of a rape kit. Later, she has to repeat her story yet again to detectives and then prepare a written statement. As minor inconsistencies are found with each repetition, and her former foster mothers start to worry that Marie seems to be too calm about the whole thing, we have to watch as the cops start to disbelieve her story and eventually accuse her of making the whole thing up. For the rest of the series, we see the implications of this on her life and the downward spiral it sends her on.

Meanwhile, starting in Episode 2, we move to 2011 and are introduced to Detective Karen Duvall (Merritt Wever) who is called in to investigate the rape of a college student, Amber Stevenson (Danielle Macdonald). In this investigation, we get to see how a rape case should be handled, with careful consideration given to the victim, always asking her permission before broaching painful questions, ensuring she has privacy, giving her the space to react however she wants, and always telling her that there's nothing wrong in what she may be feeling or experiencing. People react in a variety of different ways during and after a rape, and as Det. Duvall gently questions Amber, she gets a ton of information from this brave young woman. When she shares the details of her case with her husband, also a cop, he mentions that a detective in his department has been investigating an eerily similar crime. Duvall reaches out to Detective Grace Rasmussen (Toni Collette) and together, the women combine forces to track down a serial rapist who has been terrorizing the women of Colorado.

Did I mention this is all a true story? Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning article, An Unbelievable Story of Rape, by Ken Armstrong and T. Christian Miller, this show is a searing look at the criminal justice system and how we treat the victims of sexual assault. We see the right way and the decidedly wrong way to treat a woman who has just suffered one of the most horrifying moments of her life, and we also witness the aftermath of that incident on her life. Long after the investigation, these women continue to suffer from PTSD, anxiety, and the inability to trust those around them, constantly wondering what they might have done wrong and terrified that they will have to suffer a similar ordeal all over again. As the show cuts back and forth between 2011 and 2008, it's distressing to see how Marie's life is so completely undone by this one night of horror, and you can only desperately hope that the two detectives in Colorado catch this predator years later and deliver some semblance of justice to this woman.

Unbelievable features stunning performances and tells a painful but necessary story. It is hard to watch but it is also an incredible police procedural, highlighting both the failures and the successes that cops are capable of. But most importantly, it's a story about the victims of sexual assault and the manner in which they are often reduced to an object over the course of an investigation. These women have names, they have lives, and they deserve to be heard. No two women react to a violation of this magnitude in the same way, and dismissing anyone's story simply because they don't seem to be acting "appropriately" is a gross miscarriage of justice. So watch this show and develop a better understanding of why so many women are afraid to speak out, and why so many suffer even after they do. 

Chernobyl: Truth Hurts

Chernobyl premiered on HBO in May but I put off watching it until a few weeks ago. I was worried it would be bleak and depressing and what’s the point of rehashing a tragedy from decades past? Well turns out sure, it’s bleak and depressing, but it is also a story filled with heroes and bravery, and incredible lessons that we still need to learn to cope with the current political climate.

The series is a brief five episodes, so it is not a significant time commitment. But boy is there a lot to unpack in each installment. It begins, naturally, with the nuclear meltdown and the immediate response from firemen and emergency personnel and mass confusion among the citizens who live near the power plant. In the subsequent episodes, we are introduced to Valery Legasov (Jared Harris), the scientist tasked with cleaning up this mess and investigating what happened. He is partnered with Boris Shcherbina (Stellan Skarsgard), a gruff soldier who seems like he will be Gorbachev’s stooge and always toe the Communist Party line, but turns out to have much more of a backbone and will shift heaven and earth to get Valery everything he needs for the insane effort to clean up the disastrous radioactivity spreading across the country (and even the globe). Emily Mortimer completes the trio as Ulana Khomyuk, a scientist who talks to the survivors from the power plant and tries to piece together what exactly happened that fateful night. She uncovers state secrets and a conspiracy, and the series finale is all about what exactly individuals can do when the information they possess could benefit humanity but doesn’t benefit their political leaders.

In our era of fake news and refusing to believe scientists, Chernobyl is a painful reminder of the cost of lies and willful ignorance. Dozens of brave first responders died as a result of that meltdown - the firemen trying to put out a fire that simply couldn’t be quenched, and the doctors and nurses trying to save men who had been exposed to unimaginable levels of radioactivity and became thoroughly contaminated by the “yellow powder” themselves. In the days following the meltdown, hundreds of soldiers were conscripted to the region to kill animals, evacuate citizens, cut down trees, and bury radioactive bodies under layers of concrete where they would continue to remain radioactive for the next century. Miners were employed to dig a tunnel under one of the reactors - it was hard work and they quickly ditched all their protective gear, because ultimately, it was never going to save them anyway. When actual robots were incapable of clearing the graphite from the roof of the plant because it was too radioactive, biorobots, aka human beings, were employed instead, wrapped up in protective gear and working in 90-second shifts because anything longer would mean death. Of course, everyone ended up getting cancer and dying several years later of radiation-related illnesses, but the Soviet Union never tracked their numbers. We will never quite know the extent of the disaster.

Chernobyl is brilliantly written and powerfully told. It is compelling and educational, telling a story that I had never thought to pay much attention to. I know the name Chernobyl, but the disaster happened before I was born and seemed to be something we had already dealt with. This series reveals how close the world came to being completely obliterated solely because of a weak government that was more keen on propaganda than the truth. If it were not for the brave scientists and citizens who chipped in to clean up the mess, giving up their lives so the rest of the world could be safe, everyone would be much more aware of Chernobyl. Now, however, thanks to this series, we can be aware of these heroes and their sacrifices. And have a think about whether we are yet again putting politics above science and dooming the world to catastrophe.

September Movie Recap: Ad Astra, Downton Abbey, It Chapter Two

Another month has come and gone and again I have watched too many movies to dedicate myself to individual blog posts. What are you in the mood for? Aristocratic melodrama? Existential science fiction? Murderous clowns? I’ve got you covered.

Ad Astra: As soon as I left the theater, I texted a bunch of people that Brad Pitt should get an Oscar for crying. This is a good movie, but Pitt’s performance is what truly elevates it and serves as a reminder of why the man is a movie star. He plays an astronaut, Major Roy McBride, in the somewhat near future, a time when we have developed space technology sufficiently that we have colonised the Moon and Mars, and continue to search the solar system for signs of extraterrestrial life. When a series of power surges start to wreak havoc on humanity, Roy is tasked with tracking down his father, a man who disappeared on a mission to explore the outer bounds of the solar system, and who is now suspected of causing these new troubles.

This is an original screenplay by writer-director James Gray; I’ve been watching a lot of adaptations and sequels lately, so it was novel to see something based on completely fresh material. The story has its predictable moments, but there are many sequences laced with suspense and tension where you genuinely don’t know what to expect. The visual effects are absolutely stunning and cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema thoroughly succeeds in capturing both the vastness and claustrophobia of being out in space. It also helps that the film is scored by Max Richter, a man who always knows how to deploy cinematic music to scintillating effect.

Towards the end, Ad Astra turns into a philosophical treatise on the purpose of humanity and what drives us forward everyday. Someone told me they thought this was an art movie disguised as a popcorn flick. I felt more like it was a popcorn flick trying to be an art movie. It’s slick and propulsive, meanders a bit towards the end, but overall, it is a fresh and thought-provoking tale. I love space movies, I love Brad Pitt, and this is a movie about Brad Pitt in space. Sold. He has to carry this film, since most of the time he’s just alone in space trying not to go crazy, and he is more than up to the task. And again, when his eye starts twitching as a tear rolls down? Just give the man a damn Oscar.

Downton Abbey: This movie is sublimely ridiculous and ridiculously sublime. It’s lip service to the fans of the TV show and delivers spectacularly. Every single character you love puts in an appearance and gets to behave exactly like they did for years on the show. Molesley (Kevin Doyle) is a completely nut job, Maggie Smith delivers numerous witheringly sarcastic one-liners as the Dowager Countess, Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) bosses people around and continues her weirdly frosty relationship with her sister, Edith (Laura Carmichael), who gets to be a bit less of a sad sack this time around, presumably as a reward for the years of misery Edith endured on TV. And there's so much more, including numerous romantic interludes, a new family member, a thief, a shady soldier, a hot plumber, an irate French chef, and lest we forget, a Royal visit.

It’s an utterly unnecessary movie and perfect for our time. With the UK about to collapse due to Brexit, and the rest of the world not faring much better, what more do we all want than to transport ourselves to 1927 and follow the travails of a wealthy family? Who will polish the silver, will the staff get to serve the King and Queen, will Lord Grantham reconcile with Cousin Maud? This is the stuff that we wish was keeping us up at night. The ending of the movie reflects just how much trouble Julian Fellowes (the creator of the show and writer of this movie) had letting go, as characters kept getting to say one more thing or execute one last flourish. It’s a whole season’s worth of melodrama packed into two rollicking hours, and from start to finish, I was thoroughly ecstatic to be back at Downton.

It Chapter Two: Back in 2017, I really enjoyed the first chapter of this franchise. It was part horror, part 80's kids movie, and it managed to strike a perfect balance that hit the sweet spot. Unfortunately, Chapter Two loses some of that magic. The kids are grown up, and though they have turned into an impressive cast, including the likes of James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, and Bill Hader, the story is much more focused on the horror, and it gets repetitive real fast. Also, this movie is THREE HOURS LONG. When I came home, I looked up how long the original novel was - 1138 pages, now it all makes sense. The majority of the film merely consists of each character going off to have their own encounter with Pennywise the clown (Bill Skarsgard, who is as fabulously weird and terrifying as ever) and face their fears, much like the students of Hogwarts trying to learn how to deal with a Boggart.

In the theater, on one side of me I had my friend Laura, who hates scary movies, and on the other side I had a young boy who had snuck in with his group of middle school friends in a showy display of bravado but was rapidly regretting that choice and often had to walk out of the theater for a deep breath given that he was getting too scared. And yet, by the end of the film, even these two people were sitting there quietly, no longer terrified by the jump scares and just desperately wishing for the movie to end. Ultimately, this movie had a great cast, but was far too precious about its plot, and I’m glad there won’t be a Chapter Three. There’s only so much clown torture a body can stand.