Incredibles 2

Kind of a weird mishmash of several films that explored the “virtues/vices of superheroes” theme—the Dark Knight movies and Watchmen immediately spring to mind—except in a kids’ version. (Some of the MCU movies cover the question as well, but they’re really already for kids.) Unlike those antecedents, this one plays it mostly for chuckles, and draws its conclusions in a largely facile fashion—nothing dark and brooding here. Ultimately, the product is enjoyable and fun, if lightweight and not particularly impactful. Incredible? Not really. Watchable? Certainly.

The Marvels

A film that will live in infamy. Not that it really deserves that. Upon first release this movie was declared as the death knell for the MCU, with box office to match that characterization. Imagine, then, my surprise when I sat down to stream this piece and found it to be an eminently watchable action movie. It is hardly perfect, to be sure; the story suffers for being the latest installment in a now sprawling and over cooked fictional setting. It’s near impossible to remember exactly all that has gone before this point in the storylines: what events from earlier episodes are relevant to the current plot; where exactly are we in this timeline; who exactly all of these people are. Indeed, I’m not sure I ever even saw half the events and people that play influential roles in this story. (A few key elements seem to have been retroactively developed in order to fit this plot.) So complete comprehension of the greater storyline is a bit too much to ask of the viewer. Mostly, you just have to accept this thing at face value and enjoy what you can—and then, suddenly, the piece resolves into a fairly good time at the movies. The best revelation here? Iman Vellani as Kamala Khan, aka Ms. Marvel  She is a delight, completely charming and fun to watch (as can be said for the members of Kamala’s on-screen family). Much of the the joy in these proceedings comes from her. Other highlights include Sam Jackson as Nick Fury—behaving more like his old self versus his presence in other recent outings—and some effective use of cats for both plot advancement and comic relief. There are downsides, too. An uneven tone that sometimes takes everything far too seriously (the movie is a lot better when it is more focused on having fun—though even there the film sometimes falls into the trap of getting too damn silly). And then there's also, frankly, a weak performance by putative star Brie Larson; it turns out Captain Carol could stand to lighten up a bit. So the movie is hardly a classic, but hey, what’s up with you that you’re expecting Oscar-bait from a superhero flick? The reaction seems less about the movie itself and more the product of overdeveloped expectations from hardcore Marvel fans (who might want to watch a grown-up movie once in a while in order to re-calibrate). If you preordered a ticket to see this in a theater, maybe you had cause to be disappointed (though really, in that case you deserved your chagrin). But if you watched this one by paying a fraction of that for a month of the streaming service, then I think you got a bargain. Not especially marvelous, but no real complaints here, either.

The Long Kiss Goodnight

In some ways, this may be the stupidest movie I’ve ever watched. It takes its premise from an idea—the bump on the head that both gives and relieves amnesia—that is so idiotic that even sitcoms have largely turned away from it these days (and, indeed, in the mid-'90s when this film was made). Most of the dialogue is just blandly unremarkable, but at certain points it goes deeply south into true stupidity. And yet, there are enough positive elements here—mostly in the screen presence of the two leads, Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson—that it can’t be chalked up as a total loss. They’re watchable, in contrast with a cast of villains so generic that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that not one of them ever made another movie again. Many of the action sequences work all right, too, and that goes a long way towards papering over the weaknesses. Then again, the film seems to chicken out at the end, when what would be the obvious ending pairing in any other circumstance—meaning, not cross-racial—does not come about at the closing. That’s a weird note considering all that goes before it. Ultimately, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this movie to anyone, but if you watch it and decide you like it I won’t bother to argue with you, either. Totally your call.

Glass

I don't believe for a minute that Shyamalan intended Unbreakable to be the first picture in a trilogy. Nothing in that movie indicated that he had anything more for the story in mind. That actually makes it all the more impressive that he was able to tie it together with Split and develop this movie as a third installment in what appears to be an ad hoc series. This entry deftly unifies the second story with the first, and then gives the current narrative a life of its own, informed by but not restricted by the earliest work. With all that put together, the ultimate result here--and it does seem "ultimate" given how things go--is a strong entry into the mix, one that serves as a real showcase for McAvoy's ability to inhabit multiple characters in one role (without having to bother with introductory trappings, which make his transitions all the more seamless and impressive). The story also contains interesting meditations on the nature off comic book characters, what they are and what they represent, and this flick arguably gets right what so many of the other superhero films--particularly the biggest fish in the ocean--get dead wrong. I know that other boy from Philadelphia gets kicked around a lot, but I give credit where it's due: Shyamalan has lifted himself back up and made himself, again, a filmmaker to watch. That too is the act of a special person.

Captain Marvel

Talk about teaching to the test. This flick seems like it was generated specifically to be a Bechdel-proof exercise in superhero storytelling. That's not to say it's really all that different from other entries in the genre; there's a weird-origin setup, plenty of visual razzle-dazzle, the typical climax--heavy on spectacle while somewhat light on thoughtfulness--plus a sprinkling of oddly British aliens, along with multiple sequel setups. Some of this stuff comes out of chronological order, which comes across as less narrative creativity and more jumbled mess. On the other hand, there is some satisfying interplay between Alison Brie and Samuel Jackson, and Brie is perfectly easy on the eyes, which helps make watching this movie relatively effortless. I'm not sure this one was particularly necessary, other than to check off a diversity form box, but it's not especially burdensome either. You can kiss this girl, and you'll probably like it; I'm just not sure you'll fall in love.

Kong: Skull Island

Monkeys see, monkeys redo. In this case, a certain crew of filmmaking monkeys did a particularly well-done reimagination of the classic monster movie featuring the titular, towering primate. This flick is a sort of sequel/companion piece to the recent, under-appreciated Godzilla movie--the Monarch cinematic universe?--with some similar themes and stylistic touches, though this flick has perhaps even more visual flair, and maybe a better sense of humor. Ultimately, though, this is truly a descendant of the original, featuring more than a couple of set pieces that seem to very consciously echo that eighty-year-old classic--hence, the heart of the matter is what it always is with a good monster movie: an orgy of satisfying violence. Who can ask for more than that? (And let's face it: the Bad Cat is a bit of a monster himself, so no wonder he's purring.)

I Am Not Your Negro

Some voices cannot be silenced, by time or fashion or even through death. James Baldwin's analysis of the American condition remains powerful and important, and--as demonstrated by the seamless integration of today and yesterday displayed in this documentary--as timely as ever, even long after the author left this world thirty years ago. There's much here to think about, most assuredly for white American viewers, but also black Americans as well. It's hard to name someone who approaches the topic of race and American society today with the clarity, intellectual rigor, and convincing eloquence that Baldwin showed throughout his career; one walks away from this movie thinking that, if enough young black Americans could see this film and be inspired to follow in Baldwin's political, intellectual, and scholarly footsteps, they could be powerful weapons against the injustice that continues to plague this society. Not to be missed by anyone who wishes to recognize the uncomfortable truths about the U.S.A.

The Hateful Eight

It’s Tarantino, so you know what that means. Again, if you’re a wilting flower or a pearl-clutcher, you should probably avoid watching this one. Indeed, even the rough characters among us might find some of the contents presented here a tad difficult to take. So you’ve been warned. On the plus side--if the foregoing can be said to be a negative--there’s some very clever storytelling here, and a sharp mind might spot a few things before any reveal actually comes, which is always entertaining. And the look of the movie rivals the cinematography of just about any other film I’ve seen in a long time. I can’t say there’s a particular moral to be had here, beyond perhaps ‘don’t go looking for trouble’; but maybe, just maybe, you can say the good guys won in the end. You’ll have to be the judge of that--if you can stand all the rough stuff.

The Legend of Tarzan

Maybe this story just can't work in today's world. The original appeal of Burroughs' tale revolved around the clash of civilization vs the wild. Today, we're not so awed by the jungle anymore, especially as we know it's disappearing. Despite these hurdles, the folks here gamely give it a go, and they come close to pulling off a good adventure movie. The principals are fine in their roles: Alexander Sarsgaard is sufficiently ripped; Sam Jackson is his usual self; Margot Robbie does what she does, which is be good in any role; but Christoph Waltz is largely wasted playing a character wbo is too static--he needed more to do to make a greater impact. Beyond the human elements, things look good, but a series of visually spectacular set pieces does not a movie make. Overall, it's OK--the film holds the interest, and it looks good--but this movie comes with a nagging feeling that this is about as good as this story can get now, and that's not quite enough.

Kingsman: The Secret Service

This movie is desperately concerned with gaining its Generation AA bona fides, right down to the cockeyed way in which certain characters wear their caps. At the same time, it very self-consciously pays homage--at times out loud in the script--to spy movies of two generations ago. So then, if you throw all that together does it make for a great action adventure spy movie? Well, more like a decent action adventure spy movie. For one thing, this up to date take on the secret agent flick is substantially cruder than its predecessors: more lowbrow in its humor and gorier in its violence. Interestingly, the story gets the politics mostly right, including a provocative take on climate change and what's to be done about it. Bottom line: I suggest watching this one for free, on TV or from the library. As for the future of the genre, I don't think this one earned enough cred to merit a sequel (though I bet one shows up anyway). We'll have to wait for someone else to take this kind of flick to the next level.

Django Unchained

Is it wildly entertaining? Yes. Does it have all the layers you’d typically expect from a Tarantino movie? Sure. Will you think about it for quite some time after you’ve watched it? Of course. Is it a great movie? Well...Perhaps we’re grading on too steep a curve; maybe Q is the victim of overly lofty expectations. Hard to say, but while I did like this film, I wouldn’t say it’s quite up to snuff for such an audacious and ambitious director. There’s lots to like--the performances by Waltz and Jackson are marvels--but you can’t help but think that, in practical terms, most of the second half of the film doesn’t make much sense. Certainly you should see it; just don’t elevate it into the pantheon.

The Avengers

Mmm'okay. I guess. So this is what everyone was pissing themselves over last year? Sure, there are likable characters here--Captain Steve Rogers is an emblematic, admirable hero, plus there's that ever-reliable ton of fun, Tony Stark--but this film has too many "star" players to allow for anything like real character and/or storyline development. Plus all the pissy conflict among the team members--in the face of an immediate, known, deadly threat, no less--rings false. And then the climactic battle sequence is just plain dumb: an orgy of mindless destruction at the hands (claws?) of pan-dimensional but apparently mentally retarded aliens, who seemingly just show up without any particular battle plan, and are beaten back by a mere six beings (albeit superior or greatly equipped uber-beings). This is what stands as today's greatness? Joss, you'd better do WAY better with the next one, or you may wind up being known as the guy who queered the entire deal for everyone.

Snakes On A Plane

Silly, strange, but surprisingly fun. A much better movie than you'd expect, especially when viewed with the pre-release hype as nothing but a distant memory. It didn't change film forever, but you can do worse with two of your hours.

Star Wars: Episode III--Revenge Of The Sith

Strangely satisfying, despite the drek that preceded it. Here you will find: actual acting (amazingly enough), a decent storyline, something to say (obvious allegories for our time, which seems to be in season lately), and at least one example of rather artful film-making (the final sequence). Many flaws remain, but you don't have to be embarrassed about having watched this one.

The Red Violin

Fine musical performances abound. The presentation is beautiful throughout. So what's the problem? The main character is, shall we say, wooden. The only consistent presence here, start to finish, is the titular instrument. It's a fine piece of workmanship to be sure, and capable of extraordinary things in the right hands--but movie viewers connect with human beings, not objects. The characters in this film do not stick around long enough to build a relationship between persona and viewer. The collection of vignettes is artfully shown, and some may enjoy the pathos of the tale(s), but I suspect most viewers will not appreciate the lack of human connection.

Jackie Brown

In many ways, a typically Tarantino movie. The crime, the oddballs, the hip dialogue--it's all there. Yet, it's also a quieter, almost softer movie than Q's other works. But don't worry--people still get shot. Oh, yeah, and the soundtrack is the bomb.

Changing Lanes

It's a murky world out there, or so says this movie. I agree with it, but I'm not sure that's enough to recommend this movie. The story is good, the leads are good, the supporting cast is great, but overall it falls a little flat. The movie seems to be less than the sum of its parts. It's not a waste, but it's not must-see stuff, either.

Star Wars: Episode II--Attack of the Clones

Wretched. Badly acted, some really terrible dialogue (woodenly delivered), nonsensical in plot...even the editing is bad. At least it looks nice.

Unbreakable

Something of a stealth movie--its quality sneaks up on you, and you realize how good it is when thinking about it later, after you've finished watching it. And I really dig director Shyamalan's willingness to hold a shot; it's a refreshing change from today's dominant 'quick-edit' style.

Shaft (2000)

The remake, with Samuel L. Jackson in the title role. Not awful, but it didn't need to be made, either.