Reviews

When a bizarre movie becomes a hit, it inevitably gets labeled by those who either saw it and didn't like it or who won't see it at all. There's nothing wrong with that in principle. I didn't see "Wonka" because Timothee singing in that purple coat makes me wince, and my mom didn't see "The Favourite" because she heard it's the "movie that ends in rabbits ***ing". But "Poor Things" is a much stranger film than either of those, and maybe a little less accessible, so I regret that many will take a permanent rain check on it because it's the "Frankenstein sex movie".

"Poor Things" does have Frankenstein and sex, and really a bounty of both, but they're just figments of a much larger, more vivid assembly. Frankly, the whole viewing experience is a vacation for your face and brain. Yorgos Lanthimos's newest movie is a surrealist crusade that features Frankenstein, insofar as his monster allegorizes autonomy of the body, and sex - as a tool, a weapon, and a birthright endeavor. This movie is not dry, but it might have been if someone not named Yorgos Lanthimos made it. Though the commentary is sharply relevant, "Poor Things" douses it with whimsical absurdity, as experienced by the cast, in some weird, dazzling version of Earth from a much cooler dimension.

Emma Stone puppeteers her character Bella in hilarious fashion. Bella Baxter is a reanimated stranger raised by Willem Dafoe's Dr. Godwin (and Ramy Youssef's Max McCandles) in a lab that also features a house, and she spends the first act stumbling around the place, reacting to things as a feral kitten would. This is hysterical, made so by the cast's flawless delivery. But the real fun begins when she leaves home to wander the world with some sleazeball named Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo). Undead Bella, mentally young but growing, blazes a path visible from the I. S. S. She serves the role a beautiful alien might; naïve to human nature and its greed but growing more aware and more cynical with each interaction. Occasionally she is jerked to attention by our gentler nature in music, altruism, and food. She considers new philosophies. She experiments. Most importantly, she obtains agency over herself - with difficulty.

The most interesting part of the film for me - especially transparent while Bella's brain is still (literally) infantile - is how the men around her project themselves. She's a canvas for them to paint their desires. Because she had no say in her existence and can't yet reflect or interpret the whims of others, she accepts projections with little say-so. Dr. Godwin sees her as a daughter because he wants to; McCandles sees her as a partner because he wants to; Wedderburn sees her as a sexual escapade because he, ah... needs to (as a "pretty moron" with paper-thin ego would). Thus "Poor Things" holds up a mirror to all of us, making us giggle at our own lust and selfishness, as we every day compartmentalize people into our preferred form.

I think a lot of filmmakers making points about serious subjects are afraid of being too funny. The best of them know how to do it without subtracting from the message. My god, I was laughing nearly the entire runtime. Laughing at pitch-black humor, laughing at physical comedy, laughing at Mark Ruffalo saying "ow" in an unimaginably pretentious tone. And there's more - so much more to commend that I've barely touched on, which is fitting for this whale of a movie. It's not even long by today's standards, but rather so vibrant and juicy that it demands rewatching. If there were flaws, I'm not ready to articulate them; are there flaws in a Salvador Dali painting? I cannot wait to trap people into seeing it.

10/10 for wanting to hit a baby in public.

Martin Scorsese makes long movies; he makes gangster movies and villainous movies and movies about men who sink with their choices; but they are always long. He has made a career of painstaking attention to detail, and of getting the most out of a scene, and those scenes linger. Think of Travis Bickle blowing it on the phone with a date. Think, more famously, of Henry Hill, showing off the trappings of his mafioso nightlife. Scorsese gets close to his films, and he tells a complete story - a three-hour story, often, but one that's dense and absorbing, every time. I knew and expected this going into "Killers of the Flower Moon." Probably not all of his audience will be so willing.

A hundred years ago thrived a rich and intelligent community of Osage, owners of Oklahoman land meant to be worthless but floating on oil. In flocks the white man, coyotes, seeking a bit of fortune from these Osage; wooing their women, building them schools, and trading them goods. If any of these white folk were well-meaning, they were those who left them be when the cards were on the table. A kingpin of these folk, William Hale, has ingratiated himself within Native American society like a fattening tick. He means to take everything. In this film Robert De Niro plays an exceptional sociopath, single-minded and unconflicted, who becomes responsible for the murder (that is, the poisoning, stabbing, shooting, burning, exploding, and garroting) of dozens of these Osage.

But the soul of this film lies between Mollie (Lily Gladstone) and Ernest (Leo DiCaprio): Mollie the Osage heiress of a black gold fortune, and Ernest the dimwitted, charming nephew of Hale. Their relationship and the events within are devastating on a level I've rarely seen. It would be a disservice to dissect it in a review meant to get you to see the movie, so you'll have to take my word on their performances - stunning, perplexing, distressing, and nuanced. I don't fawn over Leo but I've never seen him better.

Something I've been dying to talk about is the balance of dialogue punctuating "Killers". Moments that tell you the most about a character are often when they say the least, white man and Osage alike. Scorsese omits subtitles in some scenes so you're scrutinizing Leo and Lily's faces as they speak her language, until suddenly you realize you didn't need them to understand. Leo's relaxed charm in the first act is later juxtaposed in U-turn fashion with contorted, confused, suffering grimaces (which apparently has people questioning if his jaw was wired). Lily conveys unimaginable heartache with simple glances, her eyes like fates, knowing how it's going down but unable to change it. Until her last appearance on screen, she's magnetic. Don't be surprised if three Academy Awards for acting home in on the three leads.

In a film of such Godforsaken girth, there is so much of "less is more" put on display. It's stated explicitly as a trait of the Osage - they waste no breath when it isn't necessary. And William Hale spends the whole film yapping.

This here's a beautifully shot bit of legitimate non-fiction which reeled me in from the start and held my attention to the end. It won't work for everybody (and already hasn't, according to some of my friends). In some other universe is a shorter cut of this film, leaner by perhaps an hour, and more of a thriller than a contemplative tragedy. As a trumpeter of this version's excellence I'm satisfied, but even I thought some scenes languished. No matter. With acting, writing, and cinematography of this echelon, I'd have sat through a fourth hour.

8/10 for being alive at the same time Marty Scorsese is making magic.

I watched it so you don't have to, and to put it bluntly, this "documentary" series is a slap in the face to the genre. There is no journalistic integrity, there is no objectivism - this is simply a platform for a narcissistic, pathological liar who avoided prison to spread her new narrative. This is OJ Simpson's "If I Did It" put to a crummy streaming service.

The main purpose of the series is to project Casey Anthony's new, "refined" narrative. The long and short of it centers around her father, who she claims is a serial sexual abuser, who murdered her child Caylee and took care of the aftermath. If George Anthony is a vile and manipulative abuser, why was he helping Casey raise her child? Why did Casey not flinch to being presented with her dead child, and then allow her to be whisked away forever? Why was she okay with partying for a month without a word to the police, or to anybody for that matter?

It doesn't explain Casey's jailhouse phonecalls to her parents, who appear genuinely distraught over Caylee's disappearance (contrasted with Casey's complete apathy and even frustration with them for being concerned about their granddaughter). It doesn't explain Casey's internet searches. It also doesn't explain her shockingly obtuse lies to the police about her fake job at Universal, the fake nanny, and everything in-between. There's no evidence against George Anthony - just the words of a proven liar trying desperately to recoup some semblance of a reputation. They used a quote from George, "I miss the smell of Caylee", as evidence for his abuse - nonsensical. Nothing adds up, and Casey is still a liar. Even the documentarians' claim that Anthony is in perfect mental health (a beat taken from her court defense) contradicts itself, because nobody of sound mind would handle Caylee's death the way Casey explained it.

As a series filed under "documentary", this thing falls embarrassingly short. It is biased towards Casey in every way - in the sympathetic music choices when Casey defends herself and foreboding music when someone condemns her, in the cherry-picked videos that appear to support her (even when the rest of the content would be damning to show), and in its conclusions. Alexandra Dean was either delusional by tackling this project, or a slimy, morally bankrupt individual. It's a shame seeing as how well-educated and experienced she is.

Don't waste your time with this, and don't bother with Peacock; my subscription is done with. This series is an insult to journalism, to Caylee, and to the truth.

First off, this movie pops. I have to give kudos where it's due. Africa is a continent flush with color and they wove a tapestry from that rainbow, then doused all their costumes and sets with it. It's a gorgeous thing to look at, with suits that could have (and probably were) ripped right out of Marvel comic books, and sets of a science fiction dream. Visual excellence is laced with an exciting and memorable soundtrack, something other Marvel films lack, and more of the quality choreography we've come to expect. They don't innovate much in this last department, but it's what the audience was hoping for. As a backdrop for a theoretically fascinating conflict between two advanced civilizations, it overdelivers.

But unfortunately, for me and my companions, these upsides really didn't make up for how long and inconsistent this film turned out to be. It runs a chunky 2 hours and 40 minutes but it doesn't fly by; many sections drag, and they drag loudly. You can feel it in the theater, when a character dives into an overlong speech that doesn't end up influencing the plot, or a filler montage stomps on the flow of the story. A teenager in my row fell asleep and his friends teased him for it. When the action picks back up again, your renewed interest is just a tad less than it was before the fluff.

The plot itself plays pretty fast and loose with the elements that are supposed to support meaningful outcomes. An example is the magical blue plant, upon which the entire plot depends, that is given no real backstory, explanation, or contribution other than "it's a magic plant". Another is the suggestion that the US government was about to "declare war on Wakanda" based on conjecture (why on earth would they ever do this?), or the villain deciding to "declare war on humanity" (as in, yes, all of humanity) even though his empire is thriving by itself. Later, after a poorly planned attack on the villain's empire, the Black Panther resolves the conflict in a dull and uncreative way - it insists on weakly executed, last-second mercy. According to the writers, a bit of mercy is a sufficient motivator to forgive and forget atrocities they spent 90 minutes detailing.

I don't want to imply that these actors underperformed, because they didn't. This is a great cast. I've seen most of the lead women in brilliant roles and they put work into these characters. Though to be honest, I'm not sure why Martin Freeman was in this movie, because he has nothing to do. Maybe it was for the fans.

To end on a kind note - I did think they paid respectful homage to Chadwick. That man was a phenomenal actor and from what I understand, he made better everything and everyone around him. That part they nailed.

5/10 for a visual buffet and fun characters.

Batman & Robin. Shrek Forever After. Spy Kids 4. These are a handful of examples where a studio puts their back into a trilogy, and then releases a forgettable, unnecessary, lackluster fourth entry. As it tends to go, most franchises eventually run out of fuel - it's enormously difficult to maintain quality with each successive release given budget restraints, popular demand, and changes in cast/crew. The good news is that as far as fourquels go, Toy Story 4 is far and above the majority. The bad news is that it's just not as good as the first three.

The magic of Toy Story is unparalleled, and there's a reason there is a market for it despite the original film being released nearly 25 years ago. Through the first trilogy we follow a band of unique and empathetic toys who deal with themes of loyalty, change, and self-confidence. Even after so many years the original film is such a joy to watch, and the third film wrapped up the characters' story in such a beautiful and satisfying way that it genuinely defied expectations. We got to witness all our favorite toys experience sudden turmoil in their lives and persevere through immense uncertainty; we also laughed, cheered and wept possibly more than either of the first two films. It was nominated for Best Picture for God's sake - that doesn't happen for animated films. It's safe to say Pixar absolutely nailed it.

Then the world got word of a follow-up, and expectations ran extremely high. Rightfully so, in my opinion, after such a strong finale nine years prior. We wondered if they would tell a story which takes place during some other time before the events of TS3, or if they would explore new and intriguing themes, or introduce fresh and fun characters. One of the three proved to be true. It's a new story, following soon after the events of the third film, and it is extraordinarily colorful and creative. But the great things about TS4 don't end at the setting; we reunite with an older character who introduces a new lifestyle, the animation is gorgeous, and the comedy, for which Pixar is usually known (though not as much lately), is ubiquitous. I loved the new cast and I enjoyed Woody's relationship with Bo Peep. I even liked the storyline in the antique shop, as obvious as the outcome was. The magic was present. The voice actors were excellent.

But as fun as it was, this movie is easily the worst in the series. I mentioned that it achieved only one of the three expectations - fresh and exciting characters. As for new themes, there really weren't any, and we instead retread over old motifs such as a sense of belonging, loyalty to your friends (and your kid), and, yes, consciousness as a toy. People may argue that the new character "Forky", who was crafted by a toddler, brings up new subject matter regarding existence; but Sid did this in the original Toy Story with his "Island of Dr. Moreau" creations. The conclusion of Forky's storyline is simply that he is a toy whether he likes it or not and that his purpose is to make a child happy - you know, like in TS2 when Jessie and Bullseye realize they can do the same for Andy. There is nothing really new here.

Finally, there is the simple and honest mistake of continuing the story after the events of the previous film. Instead of going a different direction and telling a delineated tale, they follow up with Bonnie, and it just does not have the same emotional impact as before. The shark, as they say, had already been jumped; the giant claw already saved the toys from mortal peril in the fiery trash pit in 2010. This movie feels like a soft, safe return to the familiar world, but with no real stakes, and no real new ideas, and far less of a connection. I liked it, but that's just it - there's not enough love. Whereas people still talk about Toy Story 3 today, I think this will quickly be forgotten. If we see a 5th film, here's to hoping they bring something different, and memorable, to the table.

6.5/10

After seeing this movie, and then seeing the other reviews for it online, I felt the need to write my opinion in order to share why some did not like it and why I feel it could have been far better under different direction.

First of all, I generally like Marvel's films. They manage to put out new stories virtually every year and incorporate new characters into their ensemble. They've also mastered the art of masking each film as original and fresh, and for the most part it's just a fun time at the cinema. But the problem is that eventually, while you will always be able to pick new heroes from the massive wealth Marvel has created through comics, the formula, the acting, the uninspired scripts and classic gimmicks will become stagnant and even begin to bore the audience.

I wanted to like Doctor Strange, and I, too, was convinced by the trailers that it would be captivating and interesting and thought- provoking. But twenty minutes into the movie and I could already tell how this was probably going to go.

The acting was to be expected given the cast they chose, but nothing stood out. Benedict Cumberbatch played a convincing Doctor Strange, but his character was completely static - I felt no indication that he had changed in the slightest by the end of the film (which is what the filmmakers were lazily trying to portray), and I couldn't even figure out why he suddenly wanted to fight the enemy in the first place. The rest of the characters were poorly fleshed out, and I found myself caring little for any of them, a phenomenon that did not occur when I watched "Iron Man" or "Guardians of the Galaxy". The jokes and wise-cracks felt especially childish this time around, and even out of place in the face of sincerely substantial ideas such as alternate dimensions and the fabric of time and space. Additionally, the pace simply felt rushed and awkward, and like I said before, I just couldn't find myself caring for any of the one- dimensional, superficial characters.

The plot was formulaic, which is typical and expected of Marvel; hero suddenly has powers, hero is confronted by conflict larger than himself, hero acts selflessly to save the day and the girl, hero returns and the film ends with some good old fashioned comic relief (Wang laughing, in this case). Normally I could enjoy this, but combined with the tepid acting, shallow characters and strange pacing, the whole plot and film just felt... tired. Even with the great visuals (which were truly impressive and to the benefit of the movie), I simply didn't enjoy it. I wanted more, a more interesting script that had at least a couple memorable or provocative lines rather than none, a stronger character arc, a better and more menacing villain (spoilers aside, the final confrontation was COMPLETELY underwhelming and mildly ridiculous), and, all-in-all, a more enticing movie.

I really think "Doctor Strange" could have been a lot better of a film, but I feel like the filmmakers were just flat-out lazy this time around. While I do recognize the cash-cow that is Marvel, I just hope this isn't the beginning of the end for their good movies, movies with at least a little bit of substance. They still plan to cram over a dozen heroes into Infinity War, and if as little heart and care is put into it as was put into this one, it could be a very bad, shallow, exhausted film.

3.5/10 for great visuals and a relatively coherent plot.

I have seen a very large amount of horror films such as this one; the whole haunted house setup, the possessed child, et cetera. Having said this, I expected this to be just one more "Amityville Horror" kind of movie. Yet I heard good words about it and I went to see it with a couple buddies. It got me from the start; the eerie music, the creepy scenes, everything. Yes, it was ultimately a cliché, as many movies similar to this have been done, but in a way, Insidious made a name for itself in being nearly perfect with timing, lighting, the music, the setup, etc. It was original on its own. It was one of those rare horror films where instead of delivering constant cheap scares and suspense buildups that result in merely a cat from behind a door or something like that, it had real, intense moments where you will be squealing and jumping from your seat. Pop-ups come at completely random times, where you are 100% vulnerable and are not expecting it, and boy does it get you good. When the elderly lady is describing the demon to the father and mother in the kitchen scene, and the demon suddenly appears behind the father out of nowhere, snarling, I screamed and so did my friends. Not only random pop-ups, but subtle ones, too, that have you thinking and freaking out at the same time. From start to finish, this film will have you reeling, and a MORE than satisfying ending that will you keep you up for days. Not completely original, but definitely a must-see for horror fans. It's probably the scariest movie I have ever seen.