4 Mini Reviews

As I mentioned yesterday, we will be doing three days of mini reviews as I catch up on the movies I saw in 2018 (and today one FilmStruck movie I never got around to reviewing) in an effort to wrap up 2018 before we will start doing OVP's from that year in the next few months.  As a result, here are four additional films I saw in 2018, that, while interesting, I will be giving an abbreviated review to rather than a full one as I'm a bit behind & am tired of being behind on my film reviews.

(Spoiler Alert: If you haven't seen Smallfoot, Red Sparrow, Paddington 2, or 1961's Victim, please skip over those sections & come back later when you have!)

Smallfoot (dir. Karey Kirkpatrick)

Yes, yes, we're all aware that Zendaya is Meechee, but the better question is-is this movie any good?  The question is hard to answer, as there are moments of charm in this kind of dismissible animated feature that, like seemingly all animated features, still grossed over $200 million.  Centering on the unlikely friendship between a Yeti (Channing Tatum) and a documentarian (James Corden) trying at first to exploit his new friend & then protect him, it's cute that they focus on this from the Yeti's perspective, having the humans be the "imaginary creature," but the joke gets old after a while, and no one in the voice talent is particularly good in their role, with Tatum's earnestness being the best fit for the role.  The songs are lackluster, and there's too much plot for a 96-minute movie, making the entire Percy-redemption storyline feel a bit combed over.  (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

Red Sparrow (dir. Francis Lawrence)

Jennifer Lawrence had been taking an interesting tact post-Oscar win, using her massive celebrity to greenlight movies like Joy and Mother!, which got a wider audience than they ever could have hoped to get without her face across the posters.  There's unfortunately nothing noble about her Red Sparrow, though, as this is a completely commercial play, and not an enjoyable one (or that successful of one).  The spy thriller moves along at a glacial pace (it's 140 minutes long, and could have dropped a half hour without any speed bumps), and is easy to see coming.  All of the twists are apparent to anyone who has seen a movie like this before, and the film relies heavily on extreme violence and sex to titillate the audience, but it just feels gross after a while.  Even with actors as pedigreed as Jeremy Irons & Charlotte Rampling filling out the supporting class, there's little to redeem here and Lawrence's considerable movie star charisma can't save such a dud.  Here's to hoping that she either works with better blockbuster directors going forward or returns to the arthouse soon. (Ranking: 1/5 stars)

Paddington 2 (dir. Paul King)

The best movie on this list by a country mile, Paddington 2 takes the lovely, calm tone of the first film and perfects it, with a better villain.  Hugh Grant made my personal ballot for Best Supporting Actor in 2018, and with good reason-he's marvelous as a vain, conniving washed-up actor who is desperate to find a hidden treasure by way of a pop-up book (a beautifully constructed sequence).  The film fills out the cast with a cavalry of Royal Shakespeare Company actors, but it's Grant and Ben Whishaw's Paddington, so calm, so of a different era, yet totally at home in such a film that makes this movie special.  I'd say "they don't make them like this anymore," but clearly they do, and it's refreshing & a bit shocking to find out that a movie like Paddington 2 has an audience.  Bravo to Paul King, who manages to avoid what could have been pablum and pulls together a sweet tale without ever making it sugary. (Ranking: 4/5 stars)

Victim (dir. Basil Dearden)

Considering the landmark position Victim has in LGBT cinema, it's kind of crap that I am not writing a full review on this one, but let's be real here-this is a basic suspense film that's only proper calling card is featuring a gay main protagonist.  The film, centering around the blackmail scheme of a barrister who has had a romantic (but non-sexual, cause heaven forbid he get laid) relationship with a man twenty years his junior.  The barrister is played by Dirk Bogarde, who famously was well-loved in Britain but never became proper star in the United States (probably because he was gay in real-life & didn't downplay this to the degree that would have been acceptable in 1960's Hollywood, making this film all-the-more-shocking), but I wasn't blown away at all by his work here-he plays his repressed homosexual as a constant reassurance to the straight audience that he "isn't like" the deviants that are immediately coming to mind.  This is my way of pointing out that while this was aggressively progressive at the time (it's the first English-language film to use the word "homosexual"), it has aged poorly, to the point where you really have to focus on the non-gay elements to see if it works...and it doesn't, as the suspense is marred down by antiquated politics & a thin plot.  I try to grade based on the era, rather than our current one's, but even by that metric this is just 2/5 stars.

OVP: Florence Foster Jenkins (2016)

Film: Florence Foster Jenkins (2016)
Stars: Meryl Streep, Hugh Grant, Simon Helberg, Rebecca Ferguson, Nina Arianda
Director: Stephen Frears
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Actress-Meryl Streep, Costume Design)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Meryl Streep is a joy to watch, always, but I will admit that in the past ten years or so, I haven't been in love with her present incarnation like I was with a past version.  I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but with the exception of Julie & Julia, she hasn't really floored me since The Devil Wears Prada.  Don't get me wrong-she's had some fine work in that time.  There are moments in pictures like The Iron Lady, August Osage County, and Hope Springs where she finds something special, that Meryl Streep mastery that we all loved.  But it does feel like, on occasion, she's using her reputation as one of the greatest actors of her generation a little bit to her advantage.  I do wish that while watching something like Florence Foster Jenkins, another entry in Meryl's "very good, but the movie isn't great" type films, that we'd get one more truly "WOW!" performance out of Streep ala Silkwood or Kramer vs. Kramer.  But that's a diatribe for a different day.  First, let's investigate Florence.

(Spoilers Ahead) I was largely unfamiliar with the story of Florence Foster Jenkins (Streep), a wealthy heiress who had dreams of becoming a great opera singer even though she was, unfortunately, a horrendously bad singer.  The film follows her in the twilight of her life, when she decides she wants to play Carnegie Hall and doesn't let a lack of talent get in her way.  The film also follows her caddish husband St. Clair Bayfield (Grant), who is deeply devoted to her but also frequently in the arms of his lover Kathleen (Ferguson), as he bribes everyone in town to keep up the delusion that Florence is talented.  Joined by an aspiring pianist Cosmo (Helberg), Florence eventually overcomes the odds and develops a group of wildly devoted (though ironic) fans.

The film had a weird effect on me.  I was having a particularly awful day that day, so I don't know how much this had to do with that, but the emotional climax (the scene where Florence finally gets her moment in Carnegie Hall), is riveting and may be playing you for a cheaper emotional payoff, but it works.  I was balling hysterically throughout the entire number, particularly when people decided it was time this woman, after giving so much back to the world with them frequently stealing away from her generosity, got to have her moment in the sun.  Streep, who is still a master technician as an actress, knows how to play this scene to perfection, and is once again the highlight of the film.

I guess my problem here is that the film feels so done.  The trailers give away the bulk of the film, and while it is occasionally lovely (there's nothing wrong with the movie as a whole), it feels like the sorts of films that Helen Mirren knocks out of the park already.  I didn't think this was a very special endeavor.  Perhaps this is because feel-good biopics aren't my cup-of-tea regardless of whom you put in the lead, but I wanted something more.  Meryl Streep joining with Stephen Frears, the first time she's been joined by a truly accomplished director since Robert Altman in 2006, felt like I might get something more sensational.  Instead, we got some of Frears' fluffy fare, and none of the payoff that came with Helen Mirren finally getting an Oscar herself.

The film also has some problems in terms of the side characters.  I wasn't smitten with Hugh Grant, again playing a rake, as it's deeply hard to figure out his motives and considering we see him in too many quiet moments to really leave with no sense of his character, that's the fault of the actor and writer.  Throughout, I could tell he loved Florence but couldn't tell if he only stayed for the money, or quite frankly why he had loved Florence.  Was it the case of a gold-digger who actually fell for his paramour, even if it wasn't romantic?  It's hard to say, but I should know after 100 or so minutes.

The same has to be said for Simon Helberg's Cosmo, another case of a character who felt "gay-washed" in his own picture.  Cosmo is clearly assumed to be homosexual-he eye-lusts after a man at a party and frequently works out, but we don't actually get anything more from that, which made me a little angry-why put it in if you aren't going to try and show a little something more in that scene?  It felt tagged on just to give a wink, but not enough to actually feel progressive.  It'd be nothing if this wasn't the case for dozens of movies with similar problems, so I feel like I have to call it out.

All-in-all, then, I liked, but didn't remotely love Florence Foster Jenkins, and left it growing impatient for Streep to wow us once again.  She still has a platform and can stack up the nominations-what's it going to take for her to bring another Karen Silkwood or Miranda Priestley into the world?

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

Film: The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)
Stars: Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, Elizabeth Debicki, Jared Harris, Hugh Grant
Director: Guy Ritchie
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The films of Guy Ritchie have never been particularly within my wheelhouse.  I feel there might be some jokes that I am missing amidst the supremely British humor.  Yet, I can see their charms-Ritchie is most frequently focused on entertaining us rather than creating a larger message or brand, and that is clearly on-display in The Man from UNCLE, the long-gestating big-screen adaptation of the hit 1960's TV show.  The film, amidst a summer bereft of originality and new ideas (this has been the summer of the uninspired sequel/remake, hasn't it?), this is actually a reinvention that I can get behind.  Though the film is not without its faults, the movie itself is too much fun and the actors in the leads are too game (perhaps because the two male leads desperately need a hit) to not be enjoyable.  The film appears likely to be a box office bust, but it doesn't really deserve that title, as you should make a point to catch the film.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Napoleon Solo (Cavill), a suave American spy who is forced by his government to team up with a Russian agent Illya Kuryakin (Hammer) to help stop an attempt by a Nazi villainous Victoria Vinciguerra (Debicki) to gain access to a nuclear warhead.  Set during the height of the Cold War, the two have a reason to be butting heads (the night before they teamed up, their assignment was basically to kill each other), but with the daughter of a scientist named Gabby (Vikander), they set off on a mad dash to stop the bomb from getting to the Nazis, all-the-while frequently sabotaging each other and finding disagreements along the way.

Caper films are toward the very top of my list of favorite film genres, so I knew I'd have a partiality to this film before I even got in, but what made me love it so was the way that they approached the humor.  Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer are not great actors, and they might not even be good ones at this point (Hammer is almost certain to end up in a TV show after this considering that he tanked in both this movie and The Lone Ranger, killing two franchises though neither was remotely as bad as the critics have called, and couldn't get much prestige traction for J. Edgar), but Ritchie may be the first person to get some of their charms.  The reality is that both men are almost unnaturally good-looking; I was sitting between two women during the film, and both stated "oh my" at least twice for each of them while they were onscreen and I echoed the sentiments.  Rather than ignore this fact, Ritchie exploits it for comic effect, frequently having the two of them flirting with not just every woman onscreen, but even with each other (particularly Cavill with Hammer), causing sexual tension all-over-the-place.  The result of this is a film that actually mocks the hyper-sexualization of spy films and that shows a bit of grace when it comes to the characters, many of whose motives are hard to pin down.

It's these little touches that make up for the film's second half, which frequently feels rushed and a little convenient.  Elizabeth Debicki's Victoria is the highlight of the film (the villains always are), but while she can command the screen with unabashed movie star moxie, I felt like her story was a bit too thin.  I'm not asking for 3-dimensional here (that's not really the appeal), but perhaps more screen time.  Her funniest bit was balancing her clear attraction to Napoleon with her clear need to be in control and carry out evil, but that's relegated to only a handful of scenes.  Still, I would have liked to have seen more from her and more interplay between all of the characters.  Sadly, I'm guessing that I won't get much time with them again since this is pretty much begging for a sequel and it doesn't have the gross of a movie that will get one.  But kudos to all of the leads, including Alicia Vikander who may just deserve an Oscar by acclamation this year considering this is the third film of the year she bewitched me onscreen.

It has to be said before I go that the costume work in this film is outstanding.  Joanna Johnston finally won herself a nomination three years ago after years of somehow missing for major films (she frequently works with Steven Spielberg, and yet with Munich, Saving Private Ryan, and Forrest Gump she had never nailed down a nomination until Lincoln), but this is easily the best of her career.  The women's costumes feel plucked straight out of the closets of Twiggy and Catherine Deneuve, all mod wonder and crazily sexy elegance, while the men are dapper, but with a heightened sexuality; Johnston isn't afraid to make you stare at Henry Cavill's thighs or Armie Hammer's impossibly blue eyes. All-in-all, it's the sort of work that should be nominated for an Oscar, and for a branch that has not been afraid to nominate film flops like Anonymous, W.E., The Tempest, and The Affair of the Necklace in the past, I hope they continue that trend and give it the nomination.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Were you with me that this was a fun romp late in the summer, or did you share the opinion of my aunt that it was "too slow?"  While Alicia Vikander's movie star seems firmly set, where do you see the careers of Cavill, Hammer, and Debicki going after this?  And who else thinks that Joanna Johnston should (or will) gain a nomination at year's end?  Sound off in the comments!

OVP: Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)

Film: Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
Stars: Hugh Grant, Andie MacDowell, Charlotte Coleman, James Fleet, Simon Callow, John Hannah, Kristin Scott Thomas, David Bower
Director: Mike Newell
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Once upon a time, there were Oscar races where only five films would be nominated for Best Picture.  In this rare and magical land, genres like biopics, adult dramas, and epics reigned supreme in the Best Picture race.  So, when a genre like romantic comedy managed to get into the race, it was a cause worth celebrating regardless of your feelings of the film.  Thankfully, this particular movie managed to both defy convention and be superb, so I now give you the latest installment in our Wedding Week reviews, Four Weddings and a Funeral.

(Spoilers Ahead) Proving that it's a good idea not to false advertise in your own title, the film does indeed include four weddings and a funeral, and since that's enough life events to fill any film, there is little in-between in that regard (there's basically only one scene that doesn't include one of these five life events).  The film revolves around a motley group of friends that keep getting invited to the same weddings (something that we're all familiar with at some time in our lives), led by Charles (Grant).  The opening wedding confuses a bit, when we assume that Grant is in a relationship with Charlotte Coleman's Scarlett (I feel like they may have been just roommates or cousins...I missed that one before I sealed the Netflix envelope).  Slowly, though, we find that the handsome and bumbling Charles (Grant's been doing this schtick for decades now, but it's easy to see why we wanted him to with this charming take) is single, and is totally taken with an American woman named Carrie (MacDowell).  Throughout the night, when he succeeds in going to bed with her, and subsequent weddings, we see that they are destined to be together, but like any strong romantic comedy, fate keeps pulling them apart.

The film's format works well with the story, as we're constantly surrounded by the pressures that both Charles and Carrie are facing.  The group of friends, sans two gay characters, are all single, but can see quite readily that their lives are about to change, one way or another.  A lot of romantic comedies show the pressures of one person to fall in love and find "the one."  Richard Curtis's (while Newell directed the film, Curtis wrote it and you can feel him effervescing from the movie) films typically take a different approach.  He frequently will fill his movies with a series of lovable friends, constantly devoted to each other but watching at least a few of the others in the group with a bit of worry-will they end up the spinster/eternal bachelor?  You can feel that pressure in particular from MacDowell's Carrie. She seems like a relatively independent woman, but the way that she quickly jumps into the third marriage (one that of course has to break up for us to get our happy ending) and how she bends her personality to fit this marriage give us an idea of how sick she is of being called "always the bridesmaid."

It's these darker, more complicated tones that makes Curtis's romantic comedies so rewatchable and true.  Films like Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, and Love Actually all have their chief following because they're gooey and delicious (and Curtis is one of those rare directors who can still make a quality romantic comedy), but there's also a nugget of truth and bitterness in them.  I keep remembering the Keira Knightley card scene in Love Actually (another woman who is being pursued while married), and how bitter that scene truly is, where Andrew Lincoln has to confess his love to move on with his life, knowing that he won't get the girl.  Or the Anna Scott dinner table scene, where we get the less sunny version of a movie star's life.  Curtis's screenplay here isn't afraid to give us the bitter with the sweet, and as a result, we get a more satisfying conclusion-these two lovers have had to struggle, and won't have a perfect life, but they will have one that is complete.

The movie is littered with fun and over-the-map in terms of quality performances.  My favorite by far (Grant took second) was Kristin Scott Thomas's snarky, bitter Fiona.  Every line that comes out of her mouth is pure acid, and the way that she hides her secret love for Charles (finally confessing it in a scene that was both awkward and pin-drop watchable), you get a sense of the woman that has existed in his life for years, ever knowing that she wouldn't be his.  Though she wouldn't have her major star turn until a few years later in The English Patient, I'm still surprised that in a relatively odd field (Jennifer Tilly got that Oscar nomination, still one of the most surprising slots of the 90's) that Scott Thomas couldn't translate a BAFTA win into something with Oscar.  Then again, the women's acting races of those years are bizarre because of the lack of contenders, and I am really looking forward to us tackling them in the OVP.

Andie MacDowell is the other big name in this movie, though it's hard to quite remember just how big of a star she was at the time.  I wasn't old enough to really understand movies and star-power in 1994, but doesn't it feel odd that no one talks about MacDowell anymore?  She received three Globe nominations in the span of five years (without any translating to Oscar, which we know is exceedingly rare), was in an enormous hit with Four Weddings, and even won an Honorary Cesar at a very young age, but her career has vanished since then.  People at least still talk about Meg Ryan, but MacDowell people pretend never happened.  She's now in Cedar Cove as main character Olivia Lockhart, but doesn't it feel like she should have had a longer career in the spotlight?

Or perhaps not, because that only makes sense on paper.  In this film, my first major foray into her acting ability, I was incredibly underwhelmed.  While she's gorgeous, that's about all she adds to this film-her line readings lack any sort of spark, and you are left wondering whether Charles is terribly shallow and stupid for picking Carrie over the vivacious (and also beautiful) Fiona.  I know myself personally I would have easily headed over to Kristin Scott Thomas (this might not be a fair comparison though, as KST trumps almost everyone in my world), and the film doesn't quite know what to do with MacDowell's American Venus, but MacDowell's dull performance isn't helping matters.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Where do you land on this now nearly twenty-year-old film, and for those old enough, were you surprised that it made the Best Picture race?  Anyone prefer it to Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump?  And what Andie MacDowell performance will make me fall in love with her?  Share in the comments!

OVP: The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012)

Film: The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012)
Stars: Hugh Grant, Martin Freeman, Imelda Staunton, David Tennant, Jeremy Piven, Salma Hayek
Directors: Peter Lord and Jeff Newitt
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

It's hard to believe, but The Simpsons Movie, Tangled, and Despicable Me have all been skipped over for an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature.  Huge hits, received well critically, and all managed to be the surprise Oscar snub of the nomination morning for the animators.  Since its inception roughly eleven years ago, the Animated Feature category has run the gamut from highly predictable winners (Pixar has taken the trophy an astounding six times and could well be headed to a seventh trophy) to some really out-there and off-the-wall sort of nominations (everything from The Secret of Kells and The Illusionist to Surf's Up).

It's difficult to say if it was Rise of the Guardians, Le Tableau, or Hotel Transylvania who was more disappointed on Oscar nomination morning (there's an argument to be made for any of the three being the sixth place choice), but you can tell that Peter Lord was the happiest of the five nominees. While Brave, ParaNorman, Frankenweenie, and Wreck-It Ralph all seemed like sure bets, Pirates was a film that sailed in and conquered without so much as a hello.  Sure, it's from now three-time Oscar nominee Peter Lord, whose film Chicken Run (along with The Iron Giant and South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut are likely the reasons that there is an animated race to begin with), but the film didn't do well at the Box Office domestically (not compared with its competition, at least), and so I figured it would be lost in the shuffle.  That it didn't speaks to Lord's ability with the Academy, and the eclectic nature of this category and its short history.

Of course, one of my favorite parts of the OVP is the random outlier nominations, and so I invested into this film with relish (I've been consistently critical of this category as it doesn't have the same sort of "need" that Foreign Film or Documentary does, but the more I watch the nominated films, there have been several films that I am glad are able to be called Oscar-nominated).  The film is a silly tale, but still an enjoyable one, about the Pirate Captain (either the writers got lazy on that one or this is some British humour I just didn't get), voiced by Hugh Grant, who desperately wants to win his long sought after goal of the Pirate of the Year Award.  The problem for the bumbling Captain is that he consistently finds himself in attack situations that yield little booty, and so therefore he always loses to flashier pirates like Cutlass Liz (Hayek) and Black Bellamy (Piven).

(Spoilers ahead) However, upon what seems like a routine attack, he manages to come across Charles Darwin's The Beagle, and Darwin discovers that the Captain's "parrot" Polly is in fact an extinct dodo bird, and wants to take it to England to win a prize from his crush, Queen Victoria (historical accuracy takes a sound beating throughout the movie).  The dodo wins the award for the Captain, but the prize is just an audience with the Queen, who discovers that the Captain is a pirate, and tries to trick the Captain into giving her the dodo bird.  She finally succeeds in getting the bird by offering the Captain a pile of gold and jewels.

Here's where the plot gets a little bit more complicated and occasionally insane.  The Captain sells the dodo bird to the Queen for her petting zoo, goes out and does win his award, only to have it taken away once it is revealed that he was in cahoots with the Queen, and he finally sets off to find his beloved Polly, only to discover that the goal is not to have the dodo for the petting zoo, but to eat it (she has a thing for eating rare and exotic animals).  The Captain, of course, rescues his Polly and is given back his reward after the Queen adds a bounty to his head, and they sail off into the seven seas.

The film is full of delightful visual gags, as is the Peter Lord way-everything from the characters interacting with the drawings on maps to the persistent costume changes of the Pirates.  I found the film lacked quite a bit in the final third, where the Queen inexplicably is more like a barking mad Queen of Hearts than anything resembling reality, and you sort of wonder what the point of mixing and matching history was.  Also, the whole "pirates-not-having-any-names" bit started to strain after a while, and I did wonder why they introduced such captivating side characters like Cutlass Liz and Black Bellamy and then did little to nothing with them (except to perhaps fuel future sequels, which is never a good reason for a character).  All-in-all, a fun, if slightly underwhelming movie from an animation genius.

And what did you think of Pirates?  I have now completed the nominated animated films of 2012, and while the write-up will happen when I have seen all of the nominees from 2012 (only six more to go, including two we'll be visiting in the next week), I will definitely pose the two most obvious questions: did Pirates deserve to take out fare like Hotel Transyvlania, Rise of the Guardians, and the GKids batch of films, and which of the five nominated films will and should win the Oscar in a few weeks?