Here’s a phrase I don’t understand: superhero fatigue. The Greeks had their gods, 13th century Britons had their Knights of the Round Table, and we have superheroes. Superheroes are the mythical figures we’ve chosen to use at this current moment in time to explore what makes humanity great and not-so-great. Maybe I’m just a slut for good myths, but I don’t know how you get tired of that - I think what movie reviewers people call superhero fatigue could really be simplified to “I’m tired of superhero movies that are just ‘meh’.” Or, if you break that down, “I prefer it when movies are REALLY GOOD.” Oh, do you? Wow, I can’t believe you would be so brave to admit to something so controversial. I’ve read 4 reviews so far for Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse that contain some version of “I’m sure we all have superhero fatigue BUT this movie is really great!” and I gotta say, I think these reviews are getting it all wrong. How wrong? Well...
This is movie is really great precisely because it is a superhero movie. It is the ultimate superhero movie. It is everything that superhero movies could and should be, and it’s also really, really fucking beautiful.
Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) is an average Brooklyn high school kid. His dad (Brian Tyree Henry) is a cop, his mom (Luna Lauren Valez) is a nurse, and he’s going to a ritzy private school for the first time which is causing some father-son tension because Miles is crazy smart but he misses his neighborhood friends. The only person he can talk to is his uncle Aaron (Mahershala Ali)...that is, until he gets bitten by a radioactive spider and weird, very Spider-Man-like things start happening to him. He goes back to find the spider and stumbles on the REAL Spider-Man (Chris Pine) doing battle with the Green Goblin, and Kingpin (Liev Schreiber) is there too, and there’s a giant hadron collider that goes off and suddenly there are dimensions that aren’t Miles’ bleeding into his reality. And some of that bleed-through takes the form of other Spider-people, including Peter Parker (you know, the one from OUR reality, here voiced by Jake Johnson), Gwen Stacy (Hailee Steinfeld), Spider-Man Noir (Nicolas Cage), Peni Parker (Kimiko Glenn), and Spider-Ham (John Mulaney). Together, they have to help Miles figure out how to be Spider-Man and defeat Kingpin before he destroys all of Miles’ - and everyone else’s - dimensions.
Some thoughts:
I’m not exaggerating when I say this film contains the most beautiful visuals I've seen all year. It’s a smorgasbord of sumptuous colors and textures.
Other than the visuals, the best asset the film has is its stellar voice cast. Every single person is creating a nuanced, incredibly interesting character - sometimes with 5 min or less of actual dialogue or screen time. It’s masterful work, and the chemistry between all the Spider-people is off-the-charts which is particularly incredible because, like most animated voice-over work, these actors weren’t recording in the same place at the same time.
The screenplay by Phil Lord (with input from Christopher Miller) of 21/22 Jump Street and The Lego Movie fame, is bursting with the kind of sly humor and quick wit that keeps up with the dazzling visuals. Jake Johnson is a particular treat as a 40-something Peter Parker having a mid-life crisis and becoming the gruff and unlikely mentor to a wide-eyed newbie like Miles.
Loved the shoutout to Donald Glover and Community - there’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it shot of the first episode of season 2, in which Donald Glover’s character gets out of bed wearing Spider-Man pajamas. I’m still in the #donaldforspiderman camp, so that was a thrill to see.
A superhero is only as good as their villains, and Spider-Man is blessed with some of the best. All the villains in Spider-Verse are actually scary. and the peril feels real. Part of this is some excellent character design (the Green Goblin is an actual GOBLIN which is way scarier than Willem Defoe in a metal su...ok actually Willem Defoe is pretty fucking terrifying. But the character still looks amazing here.) and part of it is the fact that these villains cause real harm. People die. The stakes feel high in a way that a lot of other superhero properties just can’t achieve.
The score and music are used masterfully to better illuminate Miles, his neighborhood, and the different personalities of all the Spider-people. This is not only how you do visual storytelling but aural characterization as well.
There is no forced love story between Miles and Gwen and I want to send a basket full of mini muffins to Phil Lord and Christopher Miller for honoring Spider-Gwen’s character arc and not ruining something that is so perfect thank you thank you thank you.
That Stan Lee cameo broke me. I thought I was ready - I wasn’t. 0 to crying instantly.
I can’t express enough what a joy it is seeing all the Spider-people interact. Nicolas Cage is playing, essentially, himself when he says things like "Wherever I go, the wind follows and that wind...smells like rain."
More than anything, though, the joy of seeing a half-black, half-Hispanic superhero who is learning that he can be Spider-Man exactly how it makes sense for him...what a gift that is. Anyone can wear the mask - anyone can be better than they think they can be, and that's the kind of woke storytelling that doesn't feel forced or like it's cashing in on a #moment. That's what superheroes were made for.
My expectations were high. What the movie delivered exceeded those expectations in every single way. Miles Morales is a regular person thrust into extraordinary circumstances, and he’s scared and excited and vulnerable and strong. He is a superhero because we all have it in us to be superheroes. We all have it in us to be the exact right version of ourselves, and to use what makes us different to become something greater. That idea makes me feel so many huge, powerful emotions - and none of them are fucking fatigue.
Between this and Ocean’s 8 I think my new favorite microgenre of movies is female-centric heist films. Except where Ocean’s 8 just makes me want to eat brunch and be gay and do crimes, this movie makes me want to burn the fucking patriarchy to the ground and dance naked around the flames. And also be gay. That’s probably my own issue. A film of this pedigree - Steve McQueen directing and also co-writing with the unstoppable Gillian Flynn, starring Viola Davis - feels like a recipe for success, but is it anything more than just some kickass ladies stealing shit? Well...
Y’all, it’s not even ABOUT the heist. It’s about Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki, and Cynthia Erivo embodying women who are trying to take control of their own lives. Women who are learning what it means to define themselves, rather than to be defined by the men they are with. Their husbands die in a heist, and they’re left to pick up the pieces - and repay those husbands’ debts, lest they get some more threatening visits from the Mannings (Daniel Kaluuya and Brian Tyree Henry). When Veronica (Viola Davis) discovers the plans for her late husband’s (Liam Neeson) next job, she gathers the widows together to pull off the job themselves and pay off the men threatening their lives. But as in all heists, there are some twists and turns along the way, and some next level suspense as they attempt to pull off the seemingly impossible.
Some thoughts:
So I have this problem where I kind of hate Michelle Rodriguez because her face like...never moves? Which feels like it should be the very first prerequisite required to be an actress, but what do I know. Anyway, the good news is that I hate her much less in this than anything else I’ve ever seen her in.
I love that each of the women get to be shown using their own experiences and skill sets to try to pull off the subterfuge. Linda (Michelle Rodriguez) speaks Spanish to another Latina woman when she’s trying to get information. “It’s my first week of work and my boss...” and the woman helps her, just like that. Because women have to stick together. Alice (Elizabeth Debicki) makes up a story about being a mail-order bride, complete with tears and rapid Polish-speaking, to get a woman at a gun show to help her purchase the guns for the job. And Veronica uses her appearance of wealth and status to infiltrate their heist location with ease. The only reason this scheme even gets off the ground is because of women helping other women at every turn.
That’s probably because every single man in this movie is untrustworthy, and his power corrupts (with the exception of one: Bash, the driver (Garret Dillahunt), did nothing wrong). Chicago politicians? Cronyism and bribes. First-time candidates for political office? Gang members and brutalizers. Nice guy john who’s paying Alice for sex? Dismissive and incapable of treating her as anything more than an object. DEATH TO THE PATRIARCHY Y’ALL.
This little white fluffy dog (who also starred in Game Night, so that’s some Meryl Streep-levels of range) is very cute but also so yappy how do criminals do crime shit when they’re carrying the loudest dog to ever exist? Also, just so everyone knows, there is a scene of brief but intense dog peril, but the dog is not harmed, I repeat, the dog survives the movie unharmed.
Steve McQueen’s directing means that not only is the pacing an exquisite slow burn, but each moment of increasing tension is also so visually beautiful to watch. Veronica wears a ton of white, and the juxtaposition between her posh, sleek white apartment and the grim darkness of the warehouse and alleys where they’re planning their crimes is an unsubtle, but effective, representation of these different worlds colliding.
A very special shout-out goes to Brian Tyree Henry and especially Daniel Kaluuya as his brother and enforcer. Kaluuya is on some next-level terrifying here, as his huge eyes stay cold and reptilian while terrorizing folks who have done his brother wrong. I can’t remember the last time I’ve been so afraid of a regular dude just standing still in a movie - maybe Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men?
Robert Duvall, playing the literal patriarch of a political dynasty in Chicago, says an incredible line about politics, but really it’s about everything: “You think you’re going to change anything? You won’t change anything. We can’t change anything; all we can do is SURVIVE. And we do that by staying in power.” Does that not explain everything about our society in a nutshell? I got chills.
Most importantly, though, these women are doing what Duvall and his son (an oily and entitled Colin Farrell) claim they’re doing to support their corner of Chicago - supporting WOC by investing in businesses, or running a small business, or rebuilding a school library - and that’s the difference. Men talk. Women do.
At first I was a bit disappointed that the film forced Viola Davis to portray Veronica as so hard, to the point of being cold and unfeeling. There’s a long cultural (racist) legacy of portraying black women as emotionless, or the strong silent type who never show their suffering. But at the very end, when Veronica runs into Alice and smiles, I was trying to figure out why the movie would end this way; why would the final shot be her smiling face? And it hit me. It’s because Veronica is only cold and ruthless when navigating her husband’s world - when she is finally out from under that weight, and living life on her own terms, she is free to express herself. She’s taken control of her own life for the first time in years, and it looks radiant on her.
This movie is like Ocean’s 8 covered in kerosene and set on fire. Whether you care about heists or not, see it.
You might be wondering why I was so excited to see a movie that’s currently hovering right around 15% on Rotten Tomatoes. You see that gif up there? THAT’S why. Taron Egerton might be the most handsome, charming man in the world. It doesn’t matter if he’s reciting the phone book on a pyre of burning garbage, I will pull up a chair and say burn, baby, burn. So that being said, is his version of Robin Hood something fun and fancy free or a basket full of turdfire? Well...
I mean...it’s a fun turdfire? I hope I don’t need to summarize the story other than to say everything is the same except Robin of Loxley (Taron Egerton) gets drafted to go into the crusades by the Sheriff of Nottingham (Ben Mendelsohn) so he goes to war in Arabia and sort of helps rescue Little John (Jamie Foxx). Then he gets back to Nottingham and his girl Marian (Eve Hewson) is with another dude and his townspeople are all living in mines that seem to manufacture sparks and lava when it’s convenient. So John helps train Robin in the mystical art of firing 3 arrows at a time in order to overthrow the Sheriff and get his land and his girl back but also like start a #revolution cause that’s what all the kids are into these days.
Some thoughts:
OK let’s start with the good. Taron is magnetic in all the right ways, and is having a blast. Also he gets in one good wink, which we all know is the only reason he takes a role. I’m sure in the audition he winked, and they were like BOOM YOU’RE HIRED.
Honestly, the fight choreography is pretty inspired. Archery hasn’t looked this cool since Legolas, and the action setpieces are definitely nonstop and explosive. Mostly that’s a good thing, but there’s also an element of “um...did they have molotov cocktails during the crusades?”
Jamie Foxx is giving about 45% of his power to this performance, but he’s such a megawatt charmer, it doesn’t even matter. It’s clear he and Taron are having a lot of fun in their scenes together, and their chemistry lifts some fairly predictable training montage sequences.
I know it wouldn’t have fit the narrative of the films, but hot damn do I wish they had let Jamie Dornan do his real accent for Christian Grey. I think I could have much more realistically been down for truly awful lines like “I don’t make love - I fuck, hard” in that Irish lilt.
Do you think Ben Mendelsohn just like, goes home to his cats and his houseplants and reads Emily Dickinson and brings coffee cake to his neighbors after he’s done shooting every major special effects blockbuster that requires a deeply committed but also cartoonish stuffed-shirt villain? I like to think so.
If the film had stuck to one central theme or message, it might have been executed a tad more deftly. Instead, it goes for a more is more approach, trying to take down capitalism, the Catholic Church, and the military industrial complex in one fell swoop. It’s not hard to see that these institutions are evil, but they begin to seem childishly drawn in such broad strokes that there’s no real life to them. Compare this to the cruel but effective satirization of capitalism in a film like Sorry to Bother You, and it’s easy to see why the message of Robin Hood is getting drowned out in all the over-the-top explosions.
The movie’s ridiculousness is almost hilarious in its audacity. The opening narration states, “I could tell you what year it was, but I don’t remember. And I could tell you the history, but you wouldn’t listen.” Yeah, I’m gonna interrupt you right there, sir. We are literally here to hear about the history. That’s why we’re seeing this movie. What kind of playing coy bullshit is that? “Oh I could tell you this story but you’re probably not interested” get the fuck outta here with that nonsense.
The closing scene isn’t much better - narrator is back, because audiences love a voiceover that appears only in the first and last 30 seconds of a film (that’s screenwriting 101). “Looks like a perfect ending, doesn’t it?” Uh, yeah. It’s great. Roll credits. No! Instead, they show what is clearly a post credits scene setting up a sequel! The chrome plated balls on these guys, I can’t make this stuff up.
I like silly action movies, and this one is an action movie that feels silly for some of the wrong reasons. However, the compelling chemistry of the leads and some excellent fight scenes at least make this entry in the Robin Hood canon much more like Disney’s sly fox than dour brooding Russell Crowe.
If you like your period pieces stuffy and strait-laced, The Favourite is not for you. Or maybe it is and you can start to like more interesting period pieces. You’ve probably heard the name of this Oscar-favorite and you may have even seen the trailer, but somehow it feels like there’s still a lot of mystery about what this one is ABOUT. Is it being overly cryptic in order to perform a bait and switch? Or is it simply one of those art movies where not a lot happens, but in wigs and corsets? Well...
More the former than the latter. What appears to be a send-up of courtly life during the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1707) turns into, essentially, a love triangle drama, complete with backstabbing, cheating, manipulating, power playing, and the use of my new favorite phrase, “cunt-struck.”
Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) is in ill health, and trusts her advisor and secret lover, Lady Sarah (Rachel Weisz) to help keep the country running in her stead. But when Sarah’s cousin Abigail (Emma Stone) arrives at the palace and endears herself to the Queen, Sarah realizes a usurper is attempting to upend her relationship with the Queen. From there, the film is a series of power plays of these two ambitious and cutthroat women, with the mercurial Queen watching from the sidelines.
Some thoughts:
The three women circling each other like wolves snapping and bickering to be the alpha are the focus, and rightly so. After so many dry, dreadful political thrillers all about men sitting at board room tables or wearing powdered wigs and sending troops to war, it’s refreshing to see the girls as the focus for a change.
Plus, all three actresses are powerhouses. This is probably the most interesting I’ve ever seen Emma Stone, and Olivia Colman plays Anne perfectly. She’s fickle, she’s emotional, she faints to get out of obligations - she’s basically the equivalent of a shitposting Twitter millenial except she’s actually in charge of things. But there’s a deep sadness within her, mostly due to her loss of 17 children. She longs for true human connection and companionship, but can never trust those around her to truly love her. It’s an old story, but one that’s well told and flawlessly executed by Colman here.
The ending is so weird as to be almost unpleasant. But I think the flames crackling in the background are meant to be the clue. Neither Abigail nor the Queen are getting precisely the arrangement they would like - and both realize what they have been forced to lose in the process. Abigail’s autonomy, and the Queen’s one faithful and honest human connection.
I am so gay for Rachel Weisz and the incredible lesbian year she’s having in 2018. Her shooting/riding outfit alone is enough to make my knees weak. Between this and Disobedience, she can be the grand marshal of next year’s Pride.
The music is so incredible. Each piece adds a richness not only to the absurd over-the-top wealth of court, but to each character’s inner thoughts and feelings.
Yorgos Lanthimos is probably a pretty weird dude, but his direction here is breathtaking. He vacillates between intimate closeups and wide, fish-eye angles, all to portray a sense of unreality and unease around court and the machinations of Abigail and Sarah. It’s undeniably effective, and creates a sort of parallel universe for us commoners to watch the rich and powerful fight and fuck. I am very eager to watch his previous films as a result of this experience.
If you can handle a little weird and a little vulgar, DEFINITELY check out The Favourite. It’s darkly funny while also retaining a core of unfulfilled sadness, and that’s just the kind of tone I wish more historical pieces would take because life is pretty damn funny, weird, and sad.
If you've ever thought that Shaun of the Dead would be better if it starred high schoolers, was set at Christmas, and was also a musical, then praise the Lord we've got a Christmas miracle that was made just for you. I'm sure those of you who weren't wishing and hoping for this incredibly specific movie stew are saying to yourselves, "Um...there's no possible way all of that can come together without being a total mess." Well...
Anna and the Apocalypse is a dazzling display of originality. The songs are catchy, the characters are well-developed, and the heart (and guts) are very real.
The film is a feature-length version of a 2011 short film, Zombie Musical, and centers on the tiny Scottish town of Little Haven as it’s overrun by the undead. Our plucky protagonists are a group of high schoolers just trying to make it through the normal life-and-death peril of senior year. There’s Anna (Ella Hunt) who wants to take a gap year and travel far far away from her little town before going to uni; John (Malcolm Cumming), who is the Ducky to Anna’s Molly Ringwald and mostly just wants her to stay; Steph (Sarah Swire) a lesbian activist who has been ditched in Little Haven by her jet-setting parents and her flakey girlfriend; and Chris (Christopher Leveaux), and amateur filmmaker who just wants to record his friends goofing around and stay with his girlfriend Lisa (Marli Siu) 5ever. Throw in a hyper-macho ex of Anna’s (Ben WIggins) and a totalitarian headmaster (Paul Kaye) and you’ve got enough drama to go around even before the dead start rising.
Some thoughts:
Yay for a lesbian main character who (spoiler) survives to the end and saves the fucking day! Any lesbians who are reading this review will appreciate knowing this information in advance, and I am very happy to report it.
The antagonist Mr. Savage kind of flips out of nowhere, and I'm not really sure why his role was so big in the back half of the film. It almost seems like they had his villain song written before the rest of the script and they had to figure out a way to work backwards around it. It's not a huge problem, per se, but in light of the situation at hand, his decisions don't really make much sense. This is the one dicey narrative spot in an otherwise pretty airtight script.
I appreciate most that each character gets their own unique and complete arc. Anna has to confront her feelings about her family and her future; John faces his feelings about Anna head-on; Chris is in search of something real to film, and he really, really gets it; Steph just wants her voice to be heard and to experience some true human connection. Even Lisa gets a fantastic jab in at Savage when he asks her what people do when society is on the verge of collapse - “They help each other.” In a tightly paced 93 minutes, I appreciate the focus on character relationships and development rather than more shots of zombie violence.
The singing is actually pretty impressive, as was the choreography. Fun fact, Sarah Swire, who plays Steph, was the choreographer as well! I particularly enjoyed the High School Musical vibes of "Hollywood Ending."
There are so many homages to so many things, it’s easy to mistake the movie as simply a pale imitation of better films. But part of the charm of Anna is the gusto with which they just GO FOR IT. The most obvious comparisons to Shaun of the Dead are justified, but John Hughes, Mean Girls, the Buffy musical episode - they’re are floating around in here too, and the end result feels bouncy and fun rather than weighted down by pop culture baggage.
Man, zombie movies are sad. I think I always forget how fundamentally sad they are.
I’m not sure there’s much more to say about a Scottish zombie Christmas musical - if you don’t think that would be your thing, I’m honestly a little sad about the lack of whimsy in your life. But if you do think it would be your thing, check this one out and enjoy listening to the soundtrack on repeat 24/7 as I’ve been doing since I left the theater.
I had a friend create a 10-category, 50-question Harry Potter trivia quiz for my 30th birthday. I have a Ravenclaw tattoo that takes up most of my right forearm. I’ve helped orchestrate an HP-themed baby shower. I’ve held multiple HP movie marathons. And when we were first dating and Wife told me she’d never read the books, I legitimately cried and then blocked it from my memory. When she told me for the second time, months later, I cried again.
One could say I’m a fan of the wizarding world.
So here we are, at the second entry in the second wizarding franchise, and the only question really worth answering is, is this a world that’s still worth visiting? Well...
Imagine someone you love - it could be anyone, but as an example I’ll use your best friend. Imagine your BEST friend, whom you’ve shared so much with, whom you’ve gone through ups and downs with. That one. Now imagine that every few months, your best friend’s mom sends you a text, or calls you, or puts up a billboard in your town that seems to be actively trying to get you to hate your best friend. Things like “She kicks puppies” or “One time, she made fun of a homeless man until he cried” or “She told me she wants to set fire to a hospital.” Like, real fucked up stuff. Would you maintain a relationship with that friend? With them both? Or would you cut ties completely and just hold onto the memories of the friendship you used to have?
I’m genuinely asking, because J.K. Rowling seems hellbent on shitting all over the things I love in some twisted effort to make me utterly baffled and repulsed by the world she has created. I never thought I’d say this, but Johnny Depp is the least of this movie’s problems, so welcome to Whose Crime Is It Anyway? where the timelines are made up and the plot points don't matter.
A spoilery summary! Our favorite Hufflepuff Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is asked by Hot Dumbledore (Jude Law) to go to Paris and find Credence (Ezra Miller). You remember Credence, the sweet emo boy from the first movie whose death functioned as the climax of the film? JK JK death is meaningless and impermanent here! It’s the roaring 20s, everyone’s drunk. Newt needs to find him because Grindelwald (Johnny Depp, doing his best impression of day-old potato salad) is also looking for him. Credence is the subject of a prophecy that everyone’s familiar with but the audience, you see, and he’s currently trapped in a Parisian street circus with a woman/snake named Nagini (Claudia Kim, and yes, THAT Nagini). Jacob and Queenie (Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol) also show up again, because they were in the first movie too so they have to be here for this. Jacob’s memory has been restored because...~handwavey reasons~ and Queenie decides to join The Mayonnaise Man’s cause as a wizard Nazi because...she wants to marry a Muggle. Somehow I think she didn’t read the whole orientation flyer. Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz) is engaged to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) but is mostly hanging around to look sad and reveal that Credence couldn’t be her long-lost brother because she killed her long-lost brother by switching him with another baby on a ship right before it sank at sea. And she’s right, Credence isn’t her brother - he’s gone over to the dark side, where the vaguely human amalgamation of cauliflower rice tells him he’s the long-lost brother of Albus Dumbledore! Because why the fuck not, nothing else in this goddamn thing makes any sense anyway.
I would also like to point out I left out at least 40 more characters, many of whom seem to be important but are never named or introduced in any way.
SEVERAL thoughts:
Visually, this world is stunning. The set designers have done an incredible job showcasing new magical settings in rich, vivid detail. The Parisian street circus and the French Ministry of Magic building were particular favorites of mine.
Likewise, the 1927-era costumes are drop-dead gorgeous. This franchise should really be called Fantastic Coats and Where to Find Them.
50 galleons seems so steep. I wonder what the wizarding inflation rate is.
Snakes can fit through bars of cages...
Performances - Redmayne is sweet, but virtually shoved out of the way in his own franchise; Kravitz is cold and removed - is that acting choice secret pain or constipation? Hard to say; Fogler is underutilized, especially after being the emotional MVP of the first film; Sudol is fractured and manic, completely devoid of her earnest warmth from before; Miller barely gets 3 lines, and mostly looks like he’s about to cry; Law is fine as hell and kindly and wise and doesn’t give off weird “I’m going to use children as sacrificial lambs without telling them or anyone else about it” vibes, so that’s already a big step up from the Dumbledore we get in the books; and then there’s Johnny. Johnny “lightly braised tofu” Depp is giving one of his most understated performances in years, to the point that he’s almost...boring? Most genocidal fuckheads are at least compelling speakers, but this dehydrated turnip just sort of glides about, while his followers do dastardly things for him. He doesn’t even kill his own toddlers, he outsources it to his followers. Does nobody believe in honest, hard work anymore?
Basically all of the details - the set dressing, the costumes, the overall aesthetics and feel of the film - are beautifully realized. However, the foundation is made of smoke and sand and the distant sound of JKR’s maniacal laughter.
Cast and endorse an accused abuser who is teetering on the brink of public collapse? Check. Include outdated Orientalism cliches by casting an East Asian woman as mysterious, dangerous, and literally snake-like? Check. How about a white imperialist Imperius-ing Leta Lestrange's (black African) mother and literally forcing her into sex slavery with no follow-up or reflection on the part of the film or its characters? Check. It’s like some sort of perverse bingo game she’s playing to try to alienate everyone who might have seen themselves in the Harry Potter universe as belonging, because they understood what it was like to be an outsider, to be abused, to be shunned and made fun of and ostracized. Cause fuck all those people, amirite?
And that’s just the offensive choices from a purely political standpoint. How about the offensive choices regarding more trivial matters like linear time and space - like Dumbledore teaching Transfiguration, not DAtDA. Or like Professor MacGonagall being born in 1935, yet somehow teaching at Hogwarts in 1927. People apparating inside Hogwarts. Complete reversals of characters’ personalities and motivations. Characters being introduced and never seen again (where did Bunty go?? Did she die???) Characters NOT being introduced and never seen again (what up Jessica Williams, super psyched that you’re here, sure would be neat if I knew who the fuck you were playing or why that person was important!) If the references are meant for fans’ benefit, it fucking BACKFIRED, because most HP fans I know aren’t looking for a convoluted soap opera where babies are switched, people have secret brothers, everyone's amnesia gets reversed, and people come back from the dead.
Now that I think about it, the practice of confronting a boggart is super problematic. Like people have traumas. It's not all spiders and snakes, Dumbledore! God, Hogwarts pedagogy is shit.
I’m still not convinced that Jude Law’s tasty Daddy Dumbledore could possibly still be in love with this tuna salad sandwich from a vending machine at the DMV. That flashback in the Mirror of Erised is supposed to be full of longing but all I could think was, “is this how straight people think gay sex works?” Would have loved to hear that day in the writer’s room. “Maybe we could have them kiss?” “Too gay. What if they exchange blood vows and hold hands to form a magical amulet?” “Nailed it.” *everyone high fives and chugs a Red Bull*
There’s just...so much. So much that I wish were different. I don’t quite know how it’s possible for a film to explain both too much and not enough, but here we are. The Crimes of Grindlewald isn’t just a title, it’s a prophecy of what audiences are forced to endure here - it’s not just separating art from artist, it’s not just cultural exploitation and othering, it’s not just queer erasure, it’s not just overplotted and underwhelming narrative, it’s not just cheap shocks and winking references. The rap sheet just keeps getting longer and longer, and I have to wonder when, if ever, Rowling will atone for these crimes.
I’m a bad Disney fan, because I have only seen the original Mary Poppins once, and that was probably 20 years ago. I recognize the spirit and emotional flavor of it more than I really remember it, you know? So forgive me if my comparisons of this sequel to the original are not quite accurate - I’m working off of feelings here more than anything. And there were quite a few feelings being felt during my showing of Mary Poppins Returns. What kind of feelings? Well...
Mainly wonder, a tiny bit of boredom, and a deep sadness followed by overwhelming joy. The plot of Mary Poppins Returns (as if that’s why you’re seeing it) follows young Michael and Jane Banks (Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer), the siblings from the original, now all grown up. Michael has three young children of his own and they’re struggling to keep the household running smoothly about a year after Michael’s wife has died. Jane is helping as best she can, but when lawyers come calling to collect on an overdue loan things look very dire, and the Banks family is going to lose the home that’s been theirs for over 30 years. If they can find the certificates of ownership showing they own shares in the bank, they can save the house but if not...the house is gone forever on Friday at midnight. Enter Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) to take care of the children during this time of crisis (with some help from lamp-lighter Lin Manuel Miranda) and help remind Michael of what’s really important.
Some thoughts:
Emily Blunt does an incredible job making the role her own as much as she can. It's impossible to measure up to the incomparable Julie Andrews, but I think this is as close as you could get. I love that her Mary Poppins is a little more brusque, a little more twinkling eye because she’s in on the joke. I couldn’t imagine this one singing “A Spoonful of Sugar” but that’s also not what these kids need, so it works really really well.
Colin Firth! How could you!
The scene stealer for me is honestly Ben Whishaw, but I've been his biggest fan since 2012. His song in which he sings to his dead wife because he misses her terribly and doesn’t know what to do had me literally sobbing. That’s what they don’t tell you about finding the love of your life and getting married - now any time I watch anything in which someone loses their spouse, I’m a wreck because I’m imagining what it would be like if I lost Wife and I cannot. handle. it. Combine that with the4 dulcet tones of maybe the sweetest, best actor in Britain and I just...*SOB*
I regret to say the film does feel longish. About 20 min too long. If it were me, I would have cut some of the extended dance numbers and honestly jettisoned Meryl Streep’s number as a crazy Russian(?) cousin who fixes unfixable things. I love Meryl as much as the next person, but this sequence felt like it took aaaaaages for very little payoff that could have been gotten elsewhere.
The big cameo appearances were excellently done in a way that didn't feel forced or pandering.
It’s honestly kind of weird to think of a big bank working FOR people's interests and swooping in to save the day rather than dancing in the flames of people’s misfortune. Although I suppose the film is set over 100 years ago, so maybe this is meant to be a quaint reminder of capitalism’s yesteryear when big banks weren’t predatory monsters? I’m happy we get a happy ending, but I grew up during the housing crisis, so you’ll excuse me if all is not forgiven after one feel-good movie.
Shockingly, I was very pleased with the children’s performances. Excellent casting, because the children are so integral to a movie like this successfully achieving its goals.
The lamplighter choreography was very Newsies-esque, but probably the closest to a showstopping number. Overall the choreography and dancing performances were lovely to watch.
The music! While none of the songs have that instant classic Sherman Brothers shine to them, they’re trying their damndest to get there. All are passable and worthy follow-ups to the original film’s songs. Wife pointed out that the songs seemed to specifically be written for the adult actors’ range, rather than the other way round, which leads to stronger vocal performances from Blunt and Miranda. There’s even a little rap section for Lin to do, which was charming.
Charming is the best word to describe anything regarding Mary Poppins, and this film is no exception. Strong performances from Blunt, with lively help from Miranda, keeps everything afloat, while the emotional heart of the film comes from Whishaw. Just like in the first film, this Mr. Banks needs saving, and watching that transformation happen is just as joyous as it was in the original.
I love occasion movies. By that I mean, I love movies that put me in a speciic mood for a specific occasion - I have to watch Planes, Trains, and Automobiles every Thanksgiving, I have to watch Empire Records on Rex Manning Day, and I HAVE to watch Halloween every Halloween. It’s part of my DNA. Now, when you’ve got an original that’s SO classic and SO perfect, it’s hard not to see the sequels as subpar. Now it’s 2018, and Jamie Lee Curtis (along with David Gordon Green and Danny McBride) are giving us another in a long line of sequels and reboots to the OG slasher film. Is it a trick or a treat? Well...
This may be one of the only decades-later sequels that I’ve ever seen that felt necessary, relevant, and totally, completely worthy of succeeding its predecessor. Right down to the title, the filmmakers got everything right - because this isn’t a sequel. It’s simply the continuation of what was started 40 years ago when Michael Myers came after Laurie Strode and showed her the face of true evil. This is the story of four decades lost.
A basic summary: Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) is a grandmother now, and she’s spent her whole life trying to prepare her daughter (Judy Greer), and to the extent she was allowed, her granddaughter (Andi Matichak) to face off against the evils of the world like a crazy bushman survivalist type. Meanwhile, two investigative journalists are doing a podcast series about the Michael Myers killings from the 70s and are trying to get both Michael and Laurie to talk to them before Michael is transferred to a much more restrictive facility where he’ll essentially rot in a windowless room forever. Michael’s not real chatty, though; he’s got bigger plans. Namely, escaping from the prison bus during the transfer. You know, the transfer that took place the day before Halloween right outside Haddonfield. (I know you’re probably understaffed, guys, but c’mon. A little bit of forethought.) October 31st rolls around and Michael’s back in his old stomping grounds, wanting to take another crack at Laurie...but this time, she’s had 40 years to prepare, and she’s not going down without a fight.
Some thoughts:
I’m so, SO glad they didn’t mess with John Carpenter’s iconic, perfect score. Not just the main theme, but the weird little auditory cues that Michael is near, or lurking behind that house are still present and ramp up the fear in an almost Pavlovian way.
What struck me most is that Laurie’s trauma has become generational trauma, shaping the lives of her daughter and her granddaughter because of Michael’s abuse.
These investigative journalists are trying to get Laurie to talk to Michael because it makes for juicy podcasting, but pitch it in the guise of “You can say all the things you want to say to him and finally move on, and let go of this anger. We’re trying to help you” and ooh, that just burned me up inside. It’s so typical for people to play the benevolent savior card of “We can help you confront your abuser, you’ll feel so much better” because it makes for a better story. It makes it easier to sympathize with victims if you know they fought back, right?
Judy Greer finally gets used to the best of her abilities as an actress, and I hope this means they no longer relegate her to the wacky best friend role in romantic comedies, because I was very impressed with her here. Her “Gotcha” moment alone elicited an actual round of applause in my theater.
Nice to know that Michael has a code and doesn’t kill kids. It’s the little things, you know?
The three women - Laurie, her daughter Karen, and her granddaughter Allyson - are the emotional core of the film, and their relationship is placed front and center. I found it fascinating that all the men in their lives are basically the worst, or useless. Allyson’s boyfriend gets drunk and kisses another girl in front of her, then gaslights her about it and destroys her phone. Karen’s husband makes jokes that make people uncomfortable and doesn’t stop even when Karen repeatedly asks him to. The investigative journalist (Jefferson Hall) wants to profit off Laurie’s pain and trauma in the guise of helping her. Let me be clear - none of these are the equivalent of stalking and killing innocent people with a butcher knife like Michael does. But. These actions exist on a spectrum of violence, particularly against women, and the normalization of these behaviors is the real Boogeyman. And much like Michael Myers, it’s a Boogeyman that’s damn hard to get rid of.
I cannot believe so many people leave their doors unlocked when they’re inside. People are unpredictable! You don’t know what they’ll do! ESPECIALLY on Halloween night, you guys. You have to lock all that shit down!
Also does no one own dogs?? I mean, I’m glad no dogs were hurt in this movie. But people love dogs. There would be at least 1 pit bull mix losing his damn mind as Michael walked by.
The homages to the original are everywhere, but are not glaringly obvious, which leads to a much more cohesive relationship between the two movies. As I said, it feels like a natural continuation. My favorites were probably the sheet ghost, Laurie’s disappearance from the lawn, and Laurie’s appearance outside Allyson’s high school.
OK so at one point, we see some people Michael killed and they’re heads have been turned into makeshift jack-o-lanterns. That’s some spooky stuff! But like. That means Michael was able to scoop out the inside of a person’s skull and put some sort of candle in there so it glowed through their mouth and eye holes. But the heads were on their side, and weren’t really flickering so I’m thinking an actual candle is ruled out - it would get snuffed out from the blood alone, the flame just wouldn’t be able to handle it. What I’m saying to you is that on a deserted road in the middle of nowhere, the only possible explanation for Michael’s arts and craft project is that he carries high-powered battery-operated flameless candles with him at all times.
I want to make it clear that this movie is actually pretty damn scary, though. Michael’s relentless stalking has been ramped up for modern sensibilities, and there are some truly terrifying sequences. Laurie’s walk through her darkened house is an extended nightmare that the movie builds to for an hour and a half, and it’s perfect in every way.
I feel like I can’t express enough how much I loved this continuation of the Halloween story. It’s a realistic look at the way trauma shapes peoples’ lives, for good or ill, and the stories we tell ourselves about the world because of that trauma. Jamie Lee Curtis is so exquisite as a woman who has lived under the shadow of this burden for 40 years - she’s tough and competent, but she’s also vulnerable and scared, because she’s not a superhero. She’s just trying to protect her family and make it through October 31st alive. I can’t wait to enjoy a double feature of the original and this entry for all my Halloweens to come.
