Reviews

There is no more prescient of a time for Spike Lee to put out a film. He's arguably the world's most important Black filmmaker and his latest movie, "Da 5 Bloods," hits screens at a time when race relations in America are at their most pivotal point since the civil rights era.

Lee's films nearly exclusively center on race. To this day his debut feature film, "Do the Right Thing," is not only dissected, discussed, and analyzed everywhere from the streets to academia for its filmmaking prowess, but also for the clarity and depth of what the film has to say about the Black experience in America.

Not stopping there, Lee set his sights on the life and times of Malcolm X, turning out a three-and-a-half hour epic that lays bare the noxious pretense of equality in America that existed during Malcolm X's lifetime, at the time of the film's 1992 release, and still exists to this day.

Lee's latest, "Da 5 Bloods," is centered on four old war buddies from Vietnam who travel back to the country to retrieve a stash of gold along with the remains of their fallen friend.

The opening of the film is not for the faint of heart. It depicts real life photos and news footage of some of the more horrifying memories of the Vietnam War era, such as the burning monk or the captive Vietnamese man executed in the street with a bullet to the head. Equally repulsive is the notion that war, oppression, racism, and corrupt politics isn't some figment of our distant past but every bit as widespread then as it is today.

A number of scenes in "Da 5 Bloods" contain fun to spot Easter eggs or homages to its cinematic brethren. Some are rather obvious, like the "Apocalypse Now" writing on the wall of the dance club or the usage of the song "Flight of the Valkyries," harkening back to the same movie. Others are a bit more meta, like the one-legged Vietnamese man throwing fire crackers at the feet of the protagonists, playfully referencing the terrifying "Dance!" scene in "Platoon."

But as much as Spike Lee might've wanted "Da 5 Bloods" to represent his own "Apocalypse Now" or "Platoon," it just isn't. Not even close. Far too many corners were cut while making the film for it to be considered in the same realm as such distinguished titles.

Just look at the blood spatter CGI used throughout "Da 5 Bloods" as an example. It looks no better than the stock blood spatter effect in Adobe. Matter of fact, it probably IS the stock blood spatter effect in Adobe. Why not spend that Netflix money and use squibs? Alternatively, if the effect is going to make the film look like a B-rated zombie flick, why use anything at all?

And what are the chances that someone looking for buried gold on the side of a mountain goes to dig a hole to take a dump in and his shovel hits ... gold. A million to one? A billion? Who cares because Spike Lee is an acclaimed writer and such mind-numbing coincidences should never make it onto the page, much less into the film?

The full list of frustrating coincidences found throughout the film is about as long as this entire review, so I'll spare you the details. The bottom line is simply that "Da 5 Bloods" isn't the film we all hoped it would be. Spike Lee is among the finest filmmakers alive. Kubrick is Kubrick because he never settled for "just good enough." Scorsese is Scorsese because he never settles for "just good enough." After watching "Da 5 Bloods," I find it very disappointing at how many times Spike Lee apparently settled for "just good enough."

Even in his wildest dreams there's no way Lorcan Finnegan could have possibly imagined a couple of years ago when he was co-writing and then directing 'Vivarium' the truly aberrant state of the world into which his second feature film would eventually be released.

And yet here we are, under a mass quarantine due to a raging coronavirus pandemic with seemingly no end in sight, relegated to streaming the few movies that are trickling out into the world since all film productions are suspended and every movie theater is closed.

Finnegan must be incredibly disappointed-as we all are-that 'Vivarium' wasn't able to enjoy the full theatrical run that it deserves (the film has since been fast-tracked onto all major video on demand services). However, there's a certain serendipity to the timing, with Finnegan crafting a story that is wonderfully bleak, totally unnerving, and incredibly prescient for the times.

For those who are curious, the word "vivarium" refers to a place such as a laboratory where animals or plants are kept under conditions simulating their natural environment so that they can be observed, typically for research.

While Jesse Eisenberg and Imogen Poots represent the proverbial labs rats in this mystery-horror-thriller, it's the impotency of adulthood and cracks in modern society that fall squarely under Finnegan's keen eye and sharp filmmaking. Covid-19 has already dimmed a lot of light in this world. If at all possible, don't let 'Vivarium' be yet another example. Stream it, spread the word, and support the project any way you can.

Marc Meyers' 'Human Capital' is a resourceful melodrama that adequately relies on one of the better ensemble casts assembled so far this year, though it largely lacks the compelling nature and overall substance that was seen in Paolo Virzi's 2013 version of the film based on the same source material.

Liev Schreiber plays Drew, a Brooklyn real estate agent who crosses paths with Quint Manning (Peter Sarsgaard), a hedge fund manager who offers a financial investment that one should suspect as being too good to be true. As Drew hustles for enough money to buy into the scheme and the resulting payoff doesn't go as planned, the rest of the picture's high caliber cast is drawn into the mix, including compelling turns by Betty Gabriel, Marisa Tomei, and Paul Sparks.

Each actor is so perfectly cast and each character is so precisely defined that one only wishes that the plot itself were more compelling, with higher stakes and more grounded interactions. Given that this film is adapted from the novel by author Stephen Amidon yet heavily influenced by the Italian version of the movie of the same name, the everywhere-and-nowhere tone seemingly stems from hewing to two different masters but inadequately paying tribute to either.

Such is the dichotomy of 'Human Capital': a pleasure to watch such skilled actors make the most of the roles they are given while being frustrated at the nagging lack of any real payoff.

Nearly every scene in Céline Sciamma's 'Portrait of a Lady on Fire' can be frozen in time, mounted on canvas, and hung on a wall for display. There's a deep, rich luxuriousness to the film, from the cinematography to the acting to the story itself, making it ever so deserving of winning the Queer Palm and Best Screenplay award at the 2019 Cannes Film Festival.

The ethereal, hovering camera work evokes the essence of a Terrance Malick film. Considering Sciamma both wrote and directed 'Portrait,' her budding career shows no less promise.

Noémie Merlant plays protagonist Marianne, an artist tasked with painting the wedding portrait of Héloïse, played by Adèle Haenel. Héloïse mustn't know Marianne's true intentions as the bride-to-be is emotionally fraught, having suffered through the recent suicide of her sister along with a stint in a convent. The notion of being married off to some Milanese nobleman in a sudden and emotionless marriage may simply be too much to bear.

As the cat-and-mouse interplay unfolds, Marianne and Héloïse bond, creating an emotional connection flecked with romantic leanings. It's within this raw passionate atmosphere that the story lingers, offering the audience a meditative mood piece that draws our own emotions into a deep, sensory-rich trance.

Though the pacing of 'Portrait of a Lady on Fire' is slow, it is necessary to achieve the hypnotic nature of the film. In capturing this deliberate rhythm, which is essential to the period and plot, Sciamma is able to fully realize the lingering memory of lovers long past into something vibrantly and excitingly new.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The director, the actor, and the cinematographer. Sam Mendes, George MacKay, and Roger Deakins.

This trinity of artists has achieved something truly special with their World War War I masterpiece '1917.' There are good movies. There are great movies. And every so often-perhaps once a year at most, if we the audience may be so spoiled-there are movies that advance the art form beyond its present state, towards a loftier plane of existence. '1917' is indeed one of these movies.

Upon seeing the film, words feel trivial in trying to characterize or describe in any meaningful way the experience that this movie provides. Give director Sam Mendes a pen and a camera and there isn't anything he can't do. Afford him the privilege of working with lead actor George MacKay and sublimity follows. Pair them both with legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins and transcendence awaits.

The "single take" effect in which the film is presented is not new. Others have also done it to great acclaim, such as Alejandro G. Inarritu with 'Birdman' or Ilya Naishuller with 'Hardcore Henry.' But no other film has done it better than '1917' and quite frankly there are few, if any films in recent memory, that have been so thoroughly exceptional in every other facet of the filmmaking process.

Director Jay Roach weaves together an intriguing and sometimes hard to stomach story that is punctuated by some truly stunning performances by some of the best actresses working in Hollywood today.

Yikes. We had incredibly high expectations for the Safdie Brothers' follow-up to 'Good Time.' Sadly, 'Uncut Gems' fell short of the mark.

There were simply too many implausibilities and peculiar character motivations for us to ever truly buy into the story, which kept us emotionally disconnected from the picture.

Hopefully the Safdie Brothers can rebound next time around.

Even though J.J. Abrams prefers to paint by numbers, his works remain fulfilling.

'Little Women' is simply a story of its time ... and a bit of a boring one at that. If Greta Gerwig can't make it captivating, nobody can.

Let's just lay these bones bare: it's not that 'A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood' is a particularly bad movie, it's just that it's unnecessary.

For those of us who live online-which is most of us, honestly-we all know that people like Fred Rogers and Bob Ross have seen a resurgence in their popularity lately due to their wholesome nature and have subsequently been canonized for sainthood by the online community.

Partly as a result, director Morgan Neville began assembling the Fred Rogers documentary 'Won't You Be My Neighbor' well ahead of the film's 2018 release. It played at Sundance on January 19th. On January 29th, it was announced that TriStar Pictures had bought the worldwide distribution rights for the source material that would eventually become 'A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.' See what we're getting at?

So 'A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood' is essentially redundant and as is the case with any facsimile, the quality just isn't as sharp. Our recommendation? Save your money and stream 'Won't You Be My Neighbor' instead.

Ignore any noise being spouted from jaded 'Star Wars' fanboys. Rian Johnson is among the finest filmmakers currently working in Hollywood.

Consider his resume: he wrote and directed 'Brick;' he wrote and directed 'The Brothers Bloom;' he wrote and directed 'Looper;' he directed the Breaking Bad episodes 'Fly,' 'Fifty-One,' and 'Ozymandias;' and most recently he wrote and directed easily the best murder-mystery of the year, 'Knives Out.'

The plot is dense and brilliantly serpentine--just as one should expect from a quintessential film of the genre--taking on the characteristics of an ouroboros.

Each of the characters in the film are familiar, flawed, and driven by their own delightfully selfish motivations.

But it's the writing-oh the wonderful writing!-that makes this picture as powerful and poetic as it is. From the plot to the dialogue to the very last gasps of the denouement, Johnson keeps the audience completely rapt and on the edge of their seats wishing the saga could somehow continue ad infinitum.

James Mangold's 'Ford v Ferrari' is a fun two-and-a-half hour ride down memory lane, circling the lives of legendary race car driver Ken Miles and equally esteemed car designer Carroll Shelby.

The film gets off to an uninspiring start, introducing the main characters using quick-hitting scenes that turn each into an eye-rolling archetype. Shelby is the inspired engineer. Miles is the irascible wildcard. Henry Ford II is the cutthroat Man of Industry ... and they even give him a sniveling bulldog lackey.

The second half of the film picks up the pace and is considerably more engaging. Mangold does a fine job filming the racing scenes, choosing just the right balance of different viewpoints and cuts. Beyond that, he thankfully spares audiences from the awful "shaky camera effect" that some filmmakers would've used anytime they wanted to ramp up the action on screen.

Given that the '24 Hours of Le Mans' race is indeed twenty-four hours long, Mangold also excels at keeping an even pace down the final stretch, not relying too much on either the racing or the off track drama, but rather striking an even balance between the two.

'The Lighthouse' ranges from artistic to avant-garde, and while some scenes push viewers towards uncomfortability, the overall merit of Robert Eggers' filmmaking isn't to be missed.

There's no question Martin Scorsese has forever left his mark on cinema. Still to this day he serves as the ordained staunchest defender of cinema. And when his maker finally reclaims him to the grandest of Wonder Theaters in the heavens above, he'll deservedly be placed on the Mount Rushmore of cinema down here on earth, forever perched just a bit higher and with far greater permanence than us regular folk.

This review won't be some drawn out ode to one of the greatest filmmakers of all time-and in particular our favorite director. His latest flick, 'The Irishman,' is magnanimous in its breadth and scale, though it isn't perfect. We wish the blood effects used throughout the film were practical instead of CGI. The Canada Dry product placement is nagging. The decision to cast Action Bronson for a certain scene is downright bizarre and the ending should've been edited down, shaving off some of the bloated 3.5 hour run time.

Yet think about what this film represents. We have Scorsese directing De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci along with a veritable "who's who" of the gangster genre. It's a once-in-a-lifetime reunion of what is called the "New Hollywood" era of cinema, the movement in American film history from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s when a new generation of young actors and filmmakers came to prominence in the U.S.

We were fortunate enough to see this film at the gorgeous and historic Belasco Theatre. The experience felt like a throwback to the golden age of cinema. We'll always cherish the memory and be thankful for all the enjoyment and pleasure Mr. Scorsese has given us over the years. If you've benefited the same, see the movie in select theaters now or on Netflix beginning November 27th.

Harriet Tubman has near-universal name recognition. Soon, she'll even be replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. But the events of her life, which is why her name is so recognized and why she deserves to be featured on currency, are far less known. This makes seeing Kasi Lemmons' 'Harriet' more valuable than just spending a couple of hours watching a movie. It's also like spending time at an educational lecture, gaining a deeper understanding of our history, our country, and ourselves.

Cynthia Erivo gives a phenomenal performance as Harriet and the story itself is truly inspirational. Throughout the film, however, the dialogue often stands out like a sore thumb, dragging the film's overall rating down. It either comes off as far too cliche, mundane, or basic compared to everything else in the movie, making it that much more (painfully) noticeable.

Overall, we still recommend seeing 'Harriet' for the reasons noted above, but just wish the pencil used to write it were a little sharper.

There's an unmatched clarity and precision to Bong Joon Ho's filmmaking. Parasite doesn't fit neatly into a genre box--it's part drama, part thriller, and part mystery--and the overall spectacle is indeed a worthy winner of Cannes Film Festival's top prize, the Palm d'Or.

Breaking Bad is Vince Gilligan. Vince Gilligan is Breaking Bad. There's just no other way to put it. And anyone who knows George Vincent Gilligan Jr. also knows that he'll produce pure brilliance regarding anything and everything to which he sets his brilliant mind.

Breaking Bad the television show is often mentioned as being one of the greatest series of all time. Breaking Bad the movie should now be discussed in terms of being one of the greatest television-to-movie continuations of all time.

Nobody should be surprised. Gilligan wrote, directed, and produced 'El Camino.' Throughout the film's masterful puppetry of drama, humor, and violence, we know it's Gilligan who is lording over it all, deftly manipulating the marionette strings. He's the reason why the show-and now the movie-exists as a tragicomedy that pirouettes at both ends of the tragedy-comedy spectrum. The same goes for David Chase's 'The Sopranos,' a show that similarly has its place on the Mount Rushmore of television. Perhaps Gilligan learned from Chase that humor makes the violence palatable and violence makes the humor essential.

Regardless, Gilligan put his legacy on the line by endeavoring to make 'El Camino.' In doing so, Gilligan doubled down, wagering everything on himself. The result? Gilligan won. Again.

Before any of us see a single frame of Todd Phillips' 'Joker' we're all well aware of the film's many plaudits and longtime critical acclaim. Even prior articles of our own have covered the fact that 'Joker' received an eight minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival, or that it also took home the Golden Lion, the festival's award for best film.

Based on the competition, such illustrious awards may very well be warranted, but over time, reaction to 'Joker' seemed to falter, starting with the movie losing out to Taika Waititi's 'Jojo Rabbit' at the Toronto International Film Festival. Even now, 'Joker' is only garnering a 69% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 58 on Metacritic. Frankly, we don't disagree.

For as much as we appreciate the grittiness and stripped-down nature of the film, which represents a welcomed departure from the typical superhero/supervillain genre (or action genre in general), the film simply has too many flaws to earn our outright acclaim.

For example, a lot of the gratuitous violence just doesn't feel organic. Instead, it feels like Phillips knew he needed to show some gruesomeness-or perhaps he just wanted to ramp up the shock factor-so he wedged a few bloody scenes into the script. Worse, a lot of the scenes were shot using a heavy filter, which to us made it feel like we we watching a movie-within-a-movie, which itself provided an emotional filter distancing us from the story unfolding on screen.

Lastly, leading up to this weekend, plenty of people have made comparisons between 'Joker' and Martin Scorsese's 'Taxi Driver.' Sure, Todd Phillips borrows a lot of imagery from the classic, especially the handgun gesture Arthur Fleck uses all too often. But if the same people are comparing the two in terms of quality and merit, they are severely overselling 'Joker,' severely underselling 'Taxi Driver,' or both.

"Below the surface, there was nothing."

This quote from the movie pretty much sums it all up. To say that 'Ad Astra' failed to meet our astronomically high expectations would be a cosmically vast understatement. Let's put it this way: you know there's a massive problem with the film when serious action sequences are drawing laughter from the audience. We couldn't laugh. We were too offended by the ridiculousness of it all.

To put it plainly, 'Ad Astra' has some of the most absurdly unrealistic scenes of any space movie we've seen. If you know anything about physics, botany, nutrition, astronomy, or just about any other branch of science, 'Ad Astra' will make your brain hurt.

Add to this the fact that the plot, production design, and cinematography are all quite horrid, and we've got ourselves a classic Razzie situation on our hands, people. Oh, and just one more thing: several media outlets have labelled the film "one of the best space movies in years." Saying as much is a gross injustice to last years criminally underrated 'First Man' (where apparently there are space pirates with Star Wars blasters roaming around)!

The source material, director, and young actors all wondrously caught lightning in a bottle with this timeless ode to adolescence.

Today's screening of 'The Peanut Butter Falcon' is a perfect example of why more theater chains need to stop acquiescing to social ingrates and adopt Alamo Drafthouse's strict no talking, no texting, no arriving late policy.

Among other distractions, two ladies directly in front of us had no qualms chatting throughout the film. Strike one. A gentleman directly behind us managed to successfully smuggle multiple grocery bags of food and beverage contraband into the theater and had no reservations rifling through them every five minutes, all while resting his bare feet atop our neighboring seat. Strike two. Lastly, a large group of geriatrics arrived (picture a caravan of senior citizens using walkers with healthcare aids helping them along) HALFWAY through the movie, disturbing everyone and everything in their wake. Strike three ... WE'RE OUT!

Distractions aside, 'The Peanut Butter Falcon' is a wonderful film that is galvanized from the opening scene to the last by the genuine connection between Shia LaBeouf and his co-star, Zack Gottsagen. Sure, there are parts of the film that are unnecessarily unrealistic-even flat-out nonsensical-but given the essence of the movie, sometimes a little imagination and suspension of disbelief are necessary to savor the day.

There have been loads of musical bio-pics coming from across the pond in recent memory, from 'Bohemian Rhapsody' to 'Rocketman' to 'Yesterday.' At the very least they've all been entertaining, though a fair share of the credit must be given to the strength of the soundtracks they've utilized. 'Blinded by the Light,' which is based on the music of Bruce Springsteen, is no different, while being thematically similar in many ways to 2016's 'Sing Street.'

The story takes place in 1987 during the austerity measures of Margaret Thatcher's Britain, where a teenager of Pakistani descent confronts social bias, familial strife, and yearns for a girlfriend. He's a naturally gifted writer and his views on life are further sharpened upon the discovery of Bruce Springsteen's music.

The plot certainly doesn't break any new ground, nor does it necessarily need to. This is a prototypical what-you-see is what-you-get feel good picture that starts off rather mundane but finishes strong and is worth the price of admission.

The original title for this post was "'The Farewell' Review: An Angsty Awkwafina Headlines This One Note Song." That was before we noticed that the film currently maintains a 99% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

After seeing that, we had to take stock of the situation by contemplating whose opinion is closer to being "correct" with regard to judging the overall quality of the movie: ours or mainstream critics.

For comparison, last year's breakout foreign film 'Shoplifters' also maintains a 99% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It won the Palm d'Or at Cannes in addition to 43 other awards around the world. The plot to 'Shoplifters' is wonderfully deep and complex. The acting is superb and the camerawork is among the best of the year.

Alternatively, 'The Farewell' exhibits almost none of those attributes. The plot is rather mundane, we're never given much of a reason to care about any of the characters, and the dialogue is pedestrian, at best.

So we'll leave it to you, film fans, to tell us who you agree with more: us or them. Go see the film, form an opinion, and let us know on social media.

We're not going to lie: Quentin Tarantino's ninth film, 'Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood' is not an easy film to review. There are plenty of good, bad, and indifferent parts of the movie to touch on, all further complicated by the fact that the bar for any Tarantino picture is already incredibly high-perhaps unfairly so.

What do we mean by that last part? Well, overall the film has been received quite positively by film critics, though Tarantino acolytes seem to be a little more tepid about it. But what if this film weren't written and directed by Tarantino, and instead was made by a lesser-known entity? Would it be considered a masterful piece of filmmaking, a breakout success largely unparalleled by anything else released so far this year? There's no actual answer to this. We simply wonder ...

Meanwhile, let's start with the bad stuff. The middle of the film is somewhat meandering, meaning this is the third film in a row that Tarantino could've trimmed some fat to make the movie that much more invigorating. And what do his three most recent movies all have in common? The absence of Tarantino's long-time editor, Sally Menke, who tragically died at the age of 56 while hiking in Beachwood Canyon during a heat wave.

Furthermore, a key component of Tarantino's movies is the way he incorporates music into the film, choosing the perfect song to complement what is seen on the screen. Our biggest gripe with 'Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood' is that the songs were often abruptly cut short, never being allowed to fully play out and truly meld with the action unfolding on screen.

On the positive side, the film is about 90% less violent than a typical Tarantino flick, meaning it'll be a lot more accessible to moviegoers who previously avoided the filmmaker due to his penchant for frequently utilizing gory deaths. This makes the film closer to 'Jackie Brown' in both substance and style than most of his other works.

Lastly, 'Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood' proves once and for all that Leonardo DiCaprio is among the finest and most talented actors of his generation. He is downright captivating in every single scene. And considering he is an actor playing an actor-one of the hardest roles there is to pull off in Hollywood-it makes his performance that much more extraordinary.