Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Maestro - Wow. I hated this. I was definitely not expecting to, as I love Bradley Cooper so much. It's just...so awful. I can't even think of anything nice to say about it except that I really liked the opening scene. The sweeping camera movement, the black & white cinematography sets up the "old Hollywood style" that persists through the whole film. In general, it's a well-made film, but it just feels so manufactured and the acting is forced. As I said, I've been a Bradley Cooper fan from day one. Literally. I even have the Kitchen Confidential box set (I bet most haven't even heard of Kitchen Confidential!). And I don't think I've ever hated a performance from him, but this is horrendous. I don't know much about Leonard Bernstein, to be fair, but this is grating to watch. He just overdoes it in every single scene. I'm not bothered by the makeup - and I even think the "old" makeup is done really well, which usually I am hypercritical of. I don't think it's antisemitic to give him a prosthetic nose if the real Leonard Bernstein did, in fact, have a large nose (it would be antisemitic if it was a fictional Jewish character. How are people not getting this? This faux outrage and "gotcha" moments are killing art.). But the performance is just so unnatural. Even weirder is that a lot of reviews that I read that aren't so favorable towards this movie or to Bradley, cite Carey Mulligan as the saving grace, but she's EVEN WORSE! Her voice sounds so strained, which caused the whole performance to feel also strained. This is where I would argue that it's important when doing biopics to capture an "essence" and not necessary try to replicate the person exactly. Because if you don't get it right, it turns into...this. My face hurt from scrunching it through this entire movie. But, again, it's well-made. I, for one, can easily hate a well-made movie, though. Aside from the performances, I don't really see the point of this either, because as I said, I didn't know much about Bernstein, and I still don't know much about him after watching this movie. It's just so boring and seems pointless? Did Bernstein overcome some big obstacle that I missed? This goes back to the point I've made many times, but not everyone is interesting enough to make a movie about. 

2. Saltburn - *slight spoilers ahead* I liked this movie. Certainly not as much as I liked Promising Young Woman, but it's entertaining and interesting, and incredibly gorgeous to look at. I don't think it's as "crazy" and "disturbing" and "shocking" as a lot of the reviews describe, but I also think this is a product of movie "reviewers" (i.e bloggers and not actual critics) being...young. And probably have not seen any films by Lynch. Or Cronenberg. Or von Trier. I could go on, but you get my point. This is fairly...mild. Definitely not as dark and twisted as it wants to be. BUT, I had a great time with it. Barry Keoghan is incredible and one of my favorite young actors - he takes on some really unexpected roles and he's nailed every single one of them. I'm not as much of a fan of Jacob Elordi, but I think he's perfectly cast here, because there is no denying that he is very, very pretty. And the way that Emerald Fennell captures his beauty is really stunning because it is "the male gaze" that is so rarely done well (and yes, I know "the male gaze" is about how women are portrayed on film, but it works here because his beauty is shown through a male character perspective. You can also call it "the female gaze" since it's a woman director. Both would be correct, I think). I've seen a lot of people compare this movie to a modernized version of The Talented Mr. Ripley (which is one of my all-time favorite movies), and I think it's a fair comparison because Jude Law was filmed the same way in that. The story also has obvious similarities and subject matter (obsession with beauty and wealth), but that's probably where the comparison ends. In The Talented Mr. Ripley, you know Ripleys' intentions from the beginning, the excitement is watching him get away with it, while I think this movie tries a little too hard to make it suspenseful and twisty by hiding our main character's intentions until the end. I do like the twist. I knew something was off, and I guessed that he was a bit of a grifter, but I think it would have made the story better if we knew that from the beginning and watched it all unfold from his point of view. As I said though, there's a lot to like about it - Carey Mulligan is the sneaky highlight (I didn't even know she was in this, and it took me a few seconds to even recognize her). I don't typically like Rosamund Pike, but her line delivery is incredible with some of the most ridiculous lines of dialogue. And back to Elordi - he's very attractive, not necessarily my type, but I get it. I didn't realize that he didn't have an American accent naturally? So now I'm questioning if his terrible performance in Euphoria is due to the fact that he's struggling with the accent? I can usually hear it right away when someone is struggling (like in this, he struggles with the British accent), but I just assumed he's just not a very good actor (especially since the lead of that show...is...also...not very good. SORRY! I'm not a Zendaya hater, though. I think she's adorable and seems sweet so I can forgive her acting skills). Anyway, I would be interested in seeing Elordi act in something with his natural accent. Him and Keoghan have great chemistry together - I LOVE their height difference. The production design and cinematography are really well done, and this world at "Saltburn" is fully realized. And there's some dark humor to it that keeps it really interesting. I think that if you go into it expecting to be shocked, you'll be disappointed. Mind you, there are some scenes that are disturbing, but it's nothing any true cinephile hasn't seen before. And, that last scene with Barry dancing around the house is so freakin' funny. 

3. Beau is Afraid - I can't believe that this film is 3 hours long. Imagine if this was told within a 2 hour timeframe? It would be a stunning achievement. It's still great - one of the best of the year, but there is something to be said about the importance of editing and pace within a film. I harp a LOT on film length, and it's exactly for this reason. Because this film would have been even more impressive with a strong critical eye that could cut the nonsense and elevate the story. Anyyyywaaay...this is a classic Greek tragedy type story - an epic, sweeping tale that has similar themes to The Odyssey. Joaquin Phoenix, once again, knocks it out of the park. How he isn't the frontrunner for the Oscar is mind-blowing and really shows that it's not necessarily about the "best" performance of the year (the three biggest factors seem to be (1) release date, (2) promotion & campaigning, (3) popularity and/or "buzz"). And you know who else is incredible in this movie??? Patti fucking LuPone. The confrontation between them towards the end is a masterclass in acting. This is probably my favorite Ari Aster film - I loved Midsommar, and I liked Hereditary but I think they were both a little overpraised and elevated by terrific acting performances by Florence Pugh and Toni Collette, respectively. I actually rated Hereditary a little low because that ending just ruined the whole movie for me, and made me angry, but maybe one day I will reassess. But, this movie not only has incredible acting, but just really beautiful imagery. The way that his paranoia is portrayed as more of a "horror" film within this drama is really successful. I loved the bit in the middle where he kind of goes through his life as if he were on a stage, but I think the beginning is the strongest. It's very interesting to watch him walk through life as if everything being said online is true (as in the world is falling apart and cities are filled with so much crime that you can't go outside. The hyperbole is unreal!). I read a few reviews that mention the films subject is possibly schizophrenic (which may be true), but I think it's more commentary on mental illness in general, and the effects of being constantly medicated. Living your life constantly afraid is a very sad way to live, but I don't think 60% of the people on medication actually need to be on medication. On a side note, that's not really criticism, but a comment on a recent trend - this is the third thing in a row that I watched that featured full-frontal male nudity (Saltburn, The Curse, and this) and can I just say, no thank you??? I feel like there's this whole push to equate the sexes with nudity in films but why?? Let's be honest, women are much more aesthetically beautiful. I just don't need to see a naked man running around with a flaccid penis and I don't think many people want to see that. 

4. The Family Plan - Obviously, this is a dumb movie. Not every film has to be high art - this was made to entertain and it accomplishes that, I think. I'm always entertained by Marky Mark, though, especially when he tries to be funny. There's just something about it that always makes me laugh. I also LOVE Michelle Monaghan. She's such an under-rated actress, and she's funny and seems sweet. And they make a cute couple together. I feel like the story has been told before (an ex assassin/spy/etc. gets thrown back into his old life unbeknownst to his new family), and they don't do much to update it or keep it interesting so it does feel like it drags towards the end (and it's too long because OF COURSE IT IS! Could have benefitted tremendously by being a solid 100 minutes). It's also very obvious; especially the whole Maggie Q bit (another under-rated actress who should have a HUGE career). There's a point where she's practicing punching on a punching bag and she says "I'm so bad at this" and I actually laughed out loud because it's so ridiculous and obvious that she's lying because SHE'S MAGGIE Q! I also think that the whole plot starts off stupid because this couple have been together for over 17 years and she's like upset that they have different visions of what the future looks like for them. Shouldn't they have discussed this, you know, like 17 years ago? He's someone that wants structure and routine - it's literally his entire personality. You can't get upset about it YEARS later? My husband is sort of the same (he HATES change and I thrive on it, but we talk about it and compromise on a lot of stuff. But we also both want the same thing in the future - no kids, maybe a small beach house, lots of travelling). Anyway, as dumb and predictable as it is, I still had fun for most of it. There's some very funny stuff - Michelle's attempt at kicking ass at the end is hilarious. The laser tag scene is really funny ("you're a laser tag savant" "no I was a kid in the 80s!" P.s, No Marky Mark nobody wants to be reminded of what you were doing in the 80s. *cough* hate crimes *cough cough*). Them singing "Ice Ice Baby" - uhhhh it's so good. But the best joke is probably something that not many people notice - the son is given the name "Van" at some point, which they all make fun of. He's not an actor that is well-known, so I don't think anyone will get that his real name is, indeed, Van unless you watch the credits (I tend to keep the credits rolling for a little). 

5. Oppenheimer - First of all, I know that I should have seen this in a movie theater. I meant to, but time got away from me, and by the time I planned to go, it was no longer playing at my local theater. I was disappointed, but it is what it is. Having seen Dunkirk (and most other Nolan films) in a theater, I know that Nolan takes this experience very seriously, especially with his sound design. But we tried our best to capture a cinema experience at home by watching it in our den that has a 65" tv, with surround sound, and all the lights out (at night too, so it was as pitch black as we can get it). Second, yes this movie is too long. But I feel like Nolan is one of maybe two directors who can get away with it - the other is Scorsese, both for very different reasons. Nolan knows how to fill the story and pace it correctly, while Scorsese has earned the right to do whatever the fuck he wants. So, no I wouldn't cut a single second from this film, which is super rare for me to say. Third, I loved this, but, surprisingly, it's not my favorite film of the year (I think May December still takes it because it's stuck with me in a stronger way). It's very typically Nolan: stunning sound design, a play with timelines while still creating simplicity for the audience, and a strong group of actors that each are given their moment to shine (I will say the exception to this among Nolan's films is Tenet, which I still liked more than most people). My favorite Nolan film is Dunkirk and this feels very much the same with the focus on a historical event, but giving it detail and also space to breath. I don't know if that makes much sense, but I just love his focus on negative space- not only visually, but also cinematically. The things that aren't said are *just* as important as what is. I was blown away by Cillian Murphy, who has always given his all as supporting characters in previous Nolan films. He should also have multiple Emmys for Peaky Blinders and he somehow has NONE??? It's crazy that he's been one of the strongest actors for the past 20 years and doesn't have an Oscar nomination and yet RAMI MALEK HAS AN OSCAR (I will never get over this, sorry!). I'm glad that he's finally being recognized as one of Hollywood's best, but I feel like everyone owes him an apology for ignoring him for 20 years. As for the supporting cast - all are great, but I think the standouts are Robert Downey Jr., and David Krumholtz (who is way too far down on the cast list? He has a fairly major part?). I didn't even realize that Matt Damon was in this, but he would be my 3rd pick as a standout. I think both female characters are severely underwritten, but I don't really mind it because I think they weren't fully formed people in Oppenheimer's life or mind, either (he didn't treat either one of them with any sort of respect). I know there were criticisms about how this film doesn't show the perspective of any Japanese people; nor does it show the devastating aftermath of the bombings (even from Spike Lee!!), but I highly disagree with that take. It's not what the film is about - and everything that happened afterwards is more well-known in history. I think Nolan does a fantastic job at showing Oppenheimer's guilt, without having it spelled out in writing (again, what's not shown is given an equal weight to what is shown). Also, to place blame on scientists for war sets a disturbing precedent - he's a cog in a machine, really. It reminds me of how that movie about Madam Curie (that was awful, btw) pretty much blames her for Cancer. Life is far more nuanced than that.