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.