Wake Up Dead Man

Word of warning: don’t watch this movie if you’re sleepy. I did, and wound up dozing off about 45 minutes in. Is that a commentary on the quality of the film, or just a product of circumstance? Maybe a bit of both. For sure, this story takes its time getting to the heart of the proceedings. That leisurely pace gives the movie a sense of being—somewhat appropriate for a murder mystery—rather lifeless. The film does eventually get going, and in doing so presents an interesting aspect of the script: some intriguing ruminations on faith and the church and their value and meaning. Plus you get to watch more of Daniel Craig inhabiting the character of Benoit Blanc, which is good entertainment. Still, I can’t help but think that this entry in Rian Johnson’s series is a touch below the previous outings. Whether that marks a death knell for the franchise or represents just a momentary dip remains at this point a question still to be answered. Not dead yet, perhaps, but in need of a little more energy—something you can say about your correspondent as well. 

Asteroid City

See, this is why artsy types get beaten up. Wes Anderson’s flamboyant use of artifice and affectation keeps growing ever more out of control with every movie he makes, to the point now where a former fan such as myself is forced to ask, is all the weirdness for the sake of weirdness a strategy to hide behind? Or is it a means to hide the simple fact that there’s actually no there there? I’m not ready to declare Anderson a total fraud—I think he does still have interesting stuff on his mind—but it is less and less evident that he can be successful in putting said ideas on the screen. This film serves as a model for that problem: everything is so unusual, and seemingly without much point to it, that it’s hard to give this work credit, even though there’s enough going on to hold the viewer's attention throughout (even when the story drags a bit). Put together, you get a movie that is not bad so much as it is baffling, even for a viewer who wants something more sophisticated than cookie-cutter entertainment. It is also worth noting that this film’s huge ensemble cast works against it; the audience is so wrapped up in noticing who is on the screen to pay as much attention to what is actually happening. (Apparently, there’s a reason for the typical “two stars plus a cast of minor players” movie formula.) It would be nice to see this auteur return to his earlier standards of work, but at this point it seems like he is too lost in his own head to ever connect with a broader audience again. Talk about being lost in the stars.

The Good Dinosaur

Oh boy. I had a bad feeling about this one going in, and the questions immediately raised by the first few minutes only affirmed that ominous impression. Why make a film that displays, rather ostentatiously, technical mastery of hyperrealistic visuals, and then have cartoonishly rendered characters? The most likely answer is, the project was targeted towards children, and their uncritical viewing habits, from the start. That decision made it inevitable that a certain laziness of thought would be baked into the entire development. The results of that trajectory show painfully in every element of the script, where every plot point can be seen coming from the entire width of a carefully designed CGI landscape away. For instance, the main crisis, when it comes, is profoundly predictable. You know almost from the opening credits that a certain character is a goner. (You may ask yourself, is this a Disney film? Well, let’s see…dead parent? Yep. Okay, that checks out.) Little else in the movie’s circuitous story comes as a surprise, either. Some scenes and characters come across as not just predictable, but tedious and out of context, too. The whole thing is ultimately banal, formulaic and even nonsensical in key moments. (The main character, though portrayed as young, weak and scared, is apparently harder to kill than a Terminator.) Not even the title makes much sense. “Good” how? How was Arlo not good in the first place? Assuming the titular adjective is aspirational, wouldn’t “brave” or “wise” or even “not so hopeless” have made more sense? At least the flawlessly rendered scenery gives the viewer his money’s worth. It seems like that was the point of this exercise, showing off the technical wizardry while assuming that they could get away with a poorly developed story because the movie would be watched mostly by children. That’s not exactly what one should expect from the ostensible lead studio in animated cinema. Whether the dinosaur deserves the label “good” or not is debatable; but you couldn’t apply that adjective to this flick in several million years.

No Time to Die

A fitting swan song for Daniel Craig’s run as James Bond, even if it does get a little too mushy here and there. There are some minor pacing problems, but when the action comes it does so in sequences that rival any in the series. As with any Bond film, the eye candy must be first rate; here Lea Seydoux and Ana de Armas admirably fill that need here. Other cast members do good to excellent jobs in support. Mostly, though, this is about Craig, stating his case as (maybe) the best Bond ever. It may be hard to lift him above Connery--who after all defined the role, and had the advantage of better context (Cold War) and, frankly, better productions (storylines, writing, and that certain, mid-century spy movie joie de vivre) on his side--but the modern man probably sits at at least No.. 2. That's hardly something to be ashamed of. This last trip through the MI6 underworld reminds us how lucky we’ve been to have had the franchise resurrected from its seeming expiration back in the Dalton/Brosnan days, when the joy largely went out and camp was practically king. Our man--or, at least, the original king's man--will return, per the post-credits teaser--but it’s hard to imagine the new guy doing any better than Craig's body of work. (That is, assuming the new Bond is a guy, and that the producers don’t go really far off the reservation with their choice). This Bond may not have gone out with the biggest bang, but he left a big, shining legacy for film history to remember and enjoy.

The Batman

It is a tribute to the quality of a creative work—or perhaps better to say, one seminal creative source—that it can continue to generate consistently solid material despite the vein having been mined so many times before. So with this movie. Here comes yet another new take on the most resilient of the comic book stories, a newly born avatar that comes across as fresh and, if not original, then at least as singular in its own take on the familiar tropes. Once again, DC's greatest intellectual property demonstrates how well the Dark Knight plays in an all-too-realistic setting--unlike the toys being sold by the guys on the other side of the book rack. This outing is gritty, dark, rough and honest in its contextualization of the guy in the cape as a symptom of a greater madness, a societal rot that can birth a hell on earth—one from which no hero, caped or otherwise, may be able to save us. The only flaws here are a slightly too-long running time, and a denouement that delivers a little less punch than expected (presumably, the one problem produces the other). Overall, though, this is an impressive entry in this venerable, seemingly ever(dark)green enterprise.

Syriana

Everybody's guilty. Including you. So seems to be the message of this work. It would be nice if there was story to go along with that sentiment. Remember, kids: a viewpoint does not a narrative make--and you know how I feel about narrative. As it stands, the food for thought goes hand in hand with the muddle of disparate plot threads. They do all weave together eventually, but from a film-making standpoint, clear expression of a central idea is lost (or at least suffers). Overall, a tough call--I know these are issues we should all be interested in, but you need to bring some keen interest and wide-ranging knowledge to play at this table. If you think you've got the intellectual grit for it, dive in. Otherwise, just go with a light comedy.