OVP: Kong: Skull Island (2017)

Film: Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Stars: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, Brie Larson, John C. Reilly
Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Some films are made to be high art.  Others are meant to make money.  The idea that the two can't merge has always bugged me.  After all, many films that we consider a "classic" today were intended to be blockbusters of their era.  Look at something like yesterday's The Adventures of Robin Hood for a good example of a movie that combined commerce with art in its era, and is now regarded as a classic.  Then you have something like Kong: Skull Island, which unlike two of its predecessors (the 1933 & 2005 versions of the story) is not intended to be a "classic" of its filmic genre, but instead feels like an all-star cash grab, and something of a franchise-starter.  Indeed, it appears that Kong: Skull Island will have a sequel next year called Godzilla vs. Kong, combining the franchise with the recent Godzilla one, though with the anemic numbers for that franchise this year, it's hard to imagine that Warner is pumped about this 2020 release.  As is evidenced by how little story matters from one movie to the next, it doesn't look like any of the main actors in this film are actually going to show up for the next movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is not exactly a retread of the King Kong legends about a film crew headed to Skull Island in hopes of finding giant beasts.  Instead, 29 years after two men are seen getting killed by a giant ape on Skull Island, an expedition happens at the tail-end of the Vietnam War headed by Bill Randa (Goodman), who works for a secret government agency called Monarch.  Headed by a Lt. Col Preston Packard (Jackson), he goes to the island and wants to prove the "Hollow Earth" theory correct, that there's a secret world within the planet that houses unknown creatures.  Also along for this journey are British Air Service Captain James Conrad (Hiddleston) and an anti-war photographer Mason Weaver (Larson), because you have to have a motley crew if you're going to pull together an all-star monster movie.  Once they get there, of course, all hell breaks loose.  Kong attacks the air units, conveniently leaving alive all of the actors we recognize and killing every single other one, and then retreats into the background, with Packard now obsessed with revenge but Conrad/Weaver both hoping to find an actual explanation for Kong.  They do, from one of the two men who landed on the island 29 years prior, Marlow (Reilly), who shows that Kong is actually defending the island from a series of creatures called "Skullcrawlers" who would destroy the people of the island (and possibly escape off of the island) if it weren't for Kong keeping them safe.  Weaver & Conrad try to convince Packard not to attack Kong, but to no avail, which results in Packard dying at Kong's hand, and then Kong having to take on the largest Skullcrawler before eventually emerging wounded but victorious.  The survivors leave, with Kong left behind, and during a post-credits scene Weaver & Conrad both learn that Kong isn't the only monster hidden beneath the earth's surface, and in fact figures like Godzilla, Rodan, & Mothra are among us, setting up the sequel.

The film is not great, and this is coming from someone who generally likes monster movies (genre bias is probably what's going to save this from being a 1-star film, so if you are prone to dislike monster movies, steer clear).  The Kong action sequences are really impressive-I get why this was nominated for Best Visual Effects at the Oscars, but the story is pretty tired and convenient.  We never quite stray into Michael Bay territory, but we come close, especially when it comes to the treatment of Jackson's character, who basically tries to get his Apocalypse Now on against Kong himself.  But the scenes with Kong, especially the air battle against the planes, is darn impressive, and might be worth checking out if you like big-budget action flicks.

The acting, though, is subpar.  You'd hardly know that the film features a trio of Oscar nominees (and John Goodman, no thespian slouch).  It's as if all of the actors in the picture just sort of decided to mentally check out, and give relatively forgettable performances, or at least ones that are over-the-top.  With a story that's pretty formulaic, you need some solid movie star work from the leads to ensure that we aren't just watching an effects spectacle, and none of them bring something special to the roles.  Jackson's at least trying with Packard, but can't ground him in any way to make him seem like a believable person, and the likes of Larson, Goodman, and Hiddleston are coasting on memories of better work and hoping you don't notice (but you will).  All-in-all, it doesn't feel like an elevated story like Godzilla a few years back, but instead more like a disposable 1960's monster movie, without the camp.  I'm part of the problem (I'll be seeing the next two movies as well because I love this genre), but I wish that Hollywood would try harder before even my die-hard love wanes.

4 Mini Reviews

All right-truth be told right now, I'm in "list-finishing" mode, an article I might be writing next week if I can find the time.  But for now, I've decided that it's time to get 2018 done, and rather than just skip some of the movies that I've seen, I am going to instead do short reviews of a dozen movies that I saw in 2018, many even from that year.  I chose these movies because they were not Oscar-nominated (so they won't be referenced when we go back to those years in 2018) and because while I always find it cool to have a full review, I don't think it is as critical to give each of these twelve their own articles.  Don't worry-missing Best Picture nominees Green Book and BlacKKKlansman, as well as one of my personal Best Picture nominees (The Other Side of the Wind), will still get the full review treatment, but as I catch up on my reviews, sacrifices had to be made.  Don't assume this will be a habit-once I catch up, I plan on staying that way & we'll be back to one film to a review.  Until then, enjoy this look at some of the many flicks I saw in 2018!

(Note-I get spoiler-y about Early Man, Annihilation, Ant-Man, and I Feel Pretty-if you haven't seen them and are planning to, skip over those reviews and just read the other ones!)

Early Man (dir. Nick Park)

This was, sadly, the first movie ever that I watched entirely by myself...not just me going by myself, but no one in the theater, a record I enjoyed attributing to a movie but didn't like because I support movie theaters and because, despite its obvious flaws, Early Man has charm.  A movie depicting cavemen playing soccer, it trades a lot in the British humor that has made Nick Park a staple at the Oscars (Early Man is the rare movie that didn't compete from Park's Aardman Studios), and occasionally falls flat, but there's a lot of heart in this film, and some clever villainy as Tom Hiddleston embraces his dark side as Lord Nooth.  A passing fancy, but still pleasurable and worth a quiet night in if you've liked Park's previous work. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

Annihilation (dir. Alex Garland)

Arguably the movie that I would have most liked to explore in a larger review (you're going to notice four 2018 movies that aren't Oscar nominees that I do give full treatment to, and if you play close attention you'll notice an odd one I highlight as opposed to Annihilation, so call me out for it when you do).  That said, while I adored Ex Machina a few years back, this one seemed to share that movie's ambitions, but not necessarily its execution.  The final third of the movie is gorgeous but makes little sense, and if the metaphor is what it's supposed to be (that we're constantly going to destroy ourselves), you can turn on the news and get that a bit more clearly.  Portman is fine, but there's not enough depth in her main character, and the same can be said for Oscar Isaac as her missing husband.  It's still got great effects (should have been cited for them with AMPAS), but there's too many moments where Garland steers into Christopher Nolan-esque "isn't this cool?" storytelling for comfort. (Ranking: 3/5 stars)

Ant-Man (dir. Peyton Reed)

The best of these four films, Ant-Man is actually one of the finest Marvel movies, period.  I loved the way that they don't necessarily feel the need to have a tragic backstory, and don't confuse comedy for weird like they did in Thor: Ragnorak.  Paul Rudd is flawless (and his abs are well-exploited in a way I wasn't expecting) as Ant-Man, a hapless loser who becomes a random superhero, but seems to genuinely enjoy his powers.  Evangeline Lilly matches well with him, but best-of-all is Michael Douglas as Lilly's father.  Douglas is one of my all-time favorite actors, and watching him latch into a proper movie star role in a genuinely good movie for the first time in (decades?) is an unabashed joy for me.  Add in truly innovative special effects, and you have the best Avengers film that doesn't have "Winter Soldier" in the title. (Ranking: 4/5 stars)

I Feel Pretty (dir. Abby Kohn & Marc Silverstein)

Amy Schumer's career since Trainwreck has been, well, the obvious title pun seems fitting.  She cancelled her hit TV show, and had two flops last year (I think technically Snatched broke even, but considering her promise in Trainwreck that feels like a flop).  I Feel Pretty was at least a financial success for Schumer, ensuring a future paycheck, but she has yet to capture the magic she exhibited with her show and Trainwreck, and seems to be losing the "Rom-Com Queen" wars to someone like Rebel Wilson, who seems a better fit for her material.  I Feel Pretty has too many obvious jokes, and feels more like a lecture than a movie.  The body positivity angles are so overdone, particularly by someone who the bulk of America wouldn't even notice as being "overweight" unless they put her next to Michelle Williams, that it is hokey.  Michelle Williams' turn as a cosmetics boss with a bizarre, squeaky voice, is staggering at first, but I wasn't enchanted by this either-it felt just like a weird decision to make rather than finding something specific to say about her spoiled-but-not-dumb manager.  Still, she's the best part of a dull movie-here's to hoping that Schumer finds her mojo again soon. (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

OVP: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Film: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Stars: Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Don Cheadle, Tom Holland, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Bettany, Elisabeth Olsen, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan, Tom Hiddleston, Idris Elba, Peter Dinklage, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Gwyneth Paltrow, Benicio del Toro, Josh Brolin, Chris Pratt (okay, seriously-what was the actor budget like on this film-this cast easily could have cost $200 million by itself)
Director: Anthony and Joe Russo
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars (read the review though, as it's really more a 2-4 star range based on the sequel)

Movies and television have started to collide in being the same mediums, something that I have never been okay with but apparently everyone else is so I've learned to deal.  The reality is that in a world where we simply rely upon "awesome franchises" for so much of our entertainment, and everything old is, well, not necessarily new but more a shattered shell of its former self (but comfortable so "who cares!"), it makes sense that a multi-billion dollar asset like the Avengers series would become essentially a multi-film TV series.  This picture, the 19th in the franchise (I believe I've seen all but two of these movies, though I'd have to double-check) is about as certain of a blockbuster hit as one can get, and because we live in an era where we need to suck up even if we aren't impressed (see also the White House Correspondents' Dinner), it's surely going to be a critical smash.  But I have been hit-or-miss with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and so I was genuinely curious if I was going to leave The Avengers duly-impressed or finding the film lacking.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place in the aftermath of our last few installments of Captain America, Thor, and Black Panther, and most-importantly finally puts Thanos (Brolin) front-and-center as our villain, as he's been whom we've been building toward for nearly a decade now as our ultimate baddie who will take over the world.  Played in dull purple by Brolin, Thanos is an all-powerful villain that never quite feels as interesting as he should; one of the cardinal sins of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that they never approach the intrigue or a Joker or Lex Luthor when it comes to their bad guys.  Thanos could be more interesting if we let him breath a bit more on his personal philosophy, as in many ways he resembles Bane in his battle for a better humanity through brutal results (he essentially wants to wipe out half of the population of the universe in order to reduce hunger and resource-deprivation).  It's entirely possible they're saving that for the sequel, but that points to perhaps the greatest problem with this movie: it needs a sequel to function, and it needs to be television to work.

Film functioning as television has always had one major flaw: TV shows end, and film franchises frequently do not, at least not while there's serious money on the table.  The best television series allow you to love characters, but also occasionally give you consequences or events that can never be undone.  Look at, say, Lost or Game of Thrones or Mad Men, and how these shows would occasionally kill off characters or end romances or have betrayals that shape the course of the series, never to be entirely glossed over.  As a result, there was genuine risk in what the series was bringing to the viewers, knowing that season finales could shape your viewpoint entirely of what might come next in the franchise.

Here, though, we watch as Spider-Man, Black Panther, Star-Lord, roughly a dozen major characters in the franchise vanish with a literal snap of the fingers in the film's final moments, as Thanos vision for a universe where half of the citizens die suddenly becomes reality.  It's a staggering sequence, with fine work from Danai Gurira (watching her invincible king evaporate in her hands), and especially a squeaky-voiced Tom Holland pleading with Iron Man to save him, the scared teenager behind the superhero emerging as he realizes the consequences of fighting for good.  In a television series, particularly one where I assumed there is only one film left, I would have thought this was a jaw-dropping moment.  Holland's fine protestations would have brought me to tears, realizing that he would leave us too quickly, and I would have been shocked that it hadn't been the actors whose contracts were about to expire (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor) who left us but the theoretical future of the series.  But I'm smart enough to realize that these characters already have films lined up (Spider-Man, in particular, is going to have to start airing trailers before Avengers is seen next year, so I'm not sure how that will even work).  Theoretically, of course, we could see the roles in these films recast, but that seems preposterous-Holland, Boseman, Pratt, these are major stars now that the public wants to see play these roles.  They aren't going to quickly disappear from the franchises, and Disney has too much money on the line to let them go.

As a result, we get a cheap ending to the film.  It's probable that we'll see them brought back next time, and then watch as the expected characters go into the sunset, with a new series of Avengers ready to take the stage, perhaps with Downey, Hemsworth, or Evans a possibility to return in 5-7 years if their careers are suffering.  But it doesn't make this film particularly interesting, and it proves that perpetual stories are too lazy.  There's a lot to like in The Avengers, even if I feel it fails on the most important element (plotting).  The victor of the movies has always truly been the casting directors, finding relative unknowns who ooze movie star charisma to play larger-than-life characters.  There is so much plot, but it's relatively brisk all-things-considered, and were it not for the inevitable deletion of the ending, it would surely stand apart as a great action film.  The movie's performances are uniformly good, with Holland, Cumberbatch, & Saldana being the standouts, and they take the time to give us fun pairings (Rocket & Thor being an obvious highlight, though I also particularly liked Spidey & Doctor Strange).

Were it not for the film's ending inevitably being deleted for something more conventional and keeping the story going perpetually (until we eventually tire of comic book heroes, which may be never), I'd give this a higher ranking, perhaps even a four-star.  But it doesn't work like that.  I know how this game plays out, and I'm not stupid enough to think that the shocking, arguably quite smart, ending to this picture won't be erased for something less intriguing.  As a result, I'm going to go with three stars, though in my head it's more like 2.5  If they keep most of the characters dead in the next film, I'll vote for a 4 star change at that time, but until then they've removed any element of surprise or sacrifice by giving us this ending, and as a result I can't applaud this picture, even if I see its value.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Film: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Stars: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Idris Elba, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins
Director: Taika Waititi
Oscar History: Marvel's not their favorite, so I'm guessing no even if VFX is theoretically a possibility.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Movies are supposed to be fun.  Like, genuinely a good time at the cinema, and I think that comic book movies have by-and-large forgotten that.  Think of the nauseating seriousness of some of the more recent Batman entries, with Christopher Nolan getting too bloated and with his inventiveness gone, the DC universe going largely to shit.  The Marvel movies have also struggled on this front, creating lighter heroes but ones still burdened by the world around them.  This occasionally can make for fine movies (Captain America: Winter Soldier still being the high-point of the Marvel universe), but it's also why people have responded so ferociously to Guardians of the Galaxy, a comic book franchise that doesn't take itself too seriously.  That was clearly what Taika Waititi had in mind with the latest installment in the Thor franchise, though I'm not entirely sold on the end result.

(Spoilers Ahead) The Thor franchise is arguably the least artistically interesting one of Marvel's universe.  One could argue that had Thor not been one of the original hits that eventually led to the Avengers movie taking over the globe, he probably wouldn't still be getting these stand-alone movies, but since he was and since Marvel essentially can print money with the Avengers franchise at this point, it's not hard to see why he's still getting his due.  Still, though, Thor as a solo character doesn't really work unless you can juxtapose him against other characters to show how preposterous he is, and Waititi certainly does that in this picture.

The film starts off with Thor (Hemsworth) returning to his home of Asgard after unsuccessfully searching for the Infinity Stones that have constantly peppered this franchise for the better part of a decade now.  We see that he no longer is with Jane, and that shockingly his brother Loki (Hiddleston) is still alive (albeit his father Odin (Hopkins) isn't long for this world).  He soon learns of Hela (Blanchett), his Goddess of Death sister, who destroys his hammer with her bare hands early in the film and slowly we watch as Thor is stripped off all of his iconography, with the hair and one eye soon to follow.   He inevitably ends up in a showdown with Hela, and proving that he has learned some humility, finally realizes that he cannot destroy her, only another demon can do so, and flees rather than stand to fight her.

The movie, though, will focus less on the fight for Asgard and more on the silly side distractions of Thor on Sakaar, a garbage dump of a planet (literally), where the Grandmaster (Goldblum) puts on massive battles that pit his Grand Champion, later revealed to be the Hulk (Ruffalo) against fighters such as Thor.  The movie stays extremely light and frothy in these parts, but I honestly wasn't feeling it.  Whereas Guardians was meant to be light, Thor has some very serious issues going on, and the Hulk in particular is played mostly for laughs but this is a deeply tragic figure.  Plus, Goldblum has used this schtick for so many years it's hard not to assume he's just playing himself onscreen.  Blanchett is better at delivering the camp as a woman who sports antlers for ears and can throw off a deadly bon mot better than pretty much anyone, but she's not central to the story-Goldblum is.  The entire movie is predicated on you just enjoying all of the silliness of Thor's compatriots, but it feels excessive.  Combined with unnecessary cameos (of course we see Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange, because that reminds people he's still around) and shocking, but then eye-rolling cameos (Matt Damon as Loki in a play...at some point we need to address that Damon has largely graduated from movie star to celebrity thanks to his string of middling movies & over-reliance on Jimmy Kimmel), the movie is reliant on societal pressure for you to love the Marvel brand so much that you're willing to dismiss the fact that the plotting here is bordering on garbage.  Chris Hemsworth has graduated into a movie star through these pictures, something we should be thankful for, and is arguably giving the best performance (give-or-take Blanchett), but movie star charisma and the face/body of an alien creature (seriously-how is it that one human being can be that attractive?) can't save this movie from being just, well, dull and pointless.  Marvel can have fun, but they need a plot and a point too.

Those are my (admittedly unpopular) thoughts on Thor: Ragnarok.  How about yours?  Anyone else find the movie to be over dull and forcing the fun, rather than seeming at ease?  Or am I just the spoil sport?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

High-Rise (2016)

Film: High-Rise (2016)
Stars: Tom Hiddleston, Jeremy Irons, Sienna Miller, Luke Evans, Elisabeth Moss
Director: Ben Wheatley
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

When I was growing up, the phrase "weird for the sake of being weird" was something I believe I first heard on The Simpsons, but it was also something that my parents occasionally would impart on me.  I remember going into an art exhibit, and my mom, while waiting for my dad who has always been intensely slow in museums, saying "let's go into the modern art exhibit" and we were greeted with fur-covered antlers and sprawling canvasses painted entirely white, and if I remember correctly, a Donald Judd exhibit that had a very touchy alarm system that my mother set off (twice).  Aside from the Judd exhibit, we were both a bit dismissive of the whole thing, essentially falling into the pattern of "weird for the sake of being weird."  Since then we've become a bit more accustomed to the art, at least asking the question "what is special enough about this to have it hanging in a museum?" and are aware it's slightly a condescending argument, but there are times when I see a movie and think "this is kind of what we were talking about."

(Spoilers Ahead) High-Rise is a film that looks great in a trailer but frequently capsizes under its promise.  I, at this point, treat all dystopian pictures as future documentaries (Trump's America and all that), but even I think we'll probably have a chic-er investment than what this movie comes up with if Armageddon hits.  The movie unfolds with Lang (Hiddleston) a wealthy doctor who has moved into a posh, expansive high rise tower in London, learning about his neighbors.  The building is filled with different castes (the higher up, the better), and we find that it's a bit of literal class warfare, as the lower classes, led initially by Richard Wilder (Evans) try to take back the building, which is experiencing electrical outages and issues with the water supply.  He threatens the owner of the building Royal (Irons), and chaos ensues, with Lang going increasingly mad after tricking a young man into suicide.  The film ends with the building left in tatters, and Lang completely out-of-his-mind after most of the people in the film have died.

The film is hard to grasp-it feels like it's paying homage to the 1970's Sci-Fi films that dealt with this sort of hyper-sexualized dystopia.  Indeed, perhaps the best thing to lend itself to this film is that Hiddleston, Evans, and Miller have never looked more alluring, even with their deep character deficits, and that's probably appealing if I can't find much else to go upon, and the set is specific and ornate-I'd recommend it for an Art Direction Oscar nomination if someone wanted to ask me for such advice.

But that's about it, because the plot is easy to see coming, and the editing is purposefully choppy.  I feel the way about High-Rise as I do about films like Oldboy.  There's style there, surely, and it's provocative, but what else is there?  If I just wanted to look at the world's sexiest Annie Leibowitz shoot, I'd ask for that.  This feels like a series of Dior commercials, without much substance to lend to it.  It's higher ideals have been done, better and repeatedly, for years in film and this feels like it's more a reaction to Thatcherite England than anything approaching our modern-day consumer excesses.  A period piece about dystopia is a weird juxtaposition, and it doesn't translate easily enough over to modern-day.  Plus, I have to say it, it's kind of boring-a movie with this much action and this much sex appeal shouldn't be as dull as it is, and yet I just kept kind of hoping it would be over.

I also want to ask, and I mean it in the nicest way possible, but at some point we're going to get a truly seismic performance out of the trio of skinny, attractive British actors that we've spent so much time with in the past four years, right?  I'm talking of course about Hiddleston, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Eddie Redmayne.  All of them have been good in films before (particularly Hiddleston in The Deep Blue Sea and Redmayne in Les Miserables), but since they turned into leading men, doesn't it feel like they're falling flat?  I find them charming when they're on Graham Norton (forgot the italics there until I edited-though I'm sure Graham wouldn't have minded the double entendre), and they all seem lovely, but I'm not wowed by them in the way I'm supposed to be wowed by someone who has achieved this stature.  At what point is one of them going to cash in on the many chances they're given and just wow us completely?  I'm waiting...

Crimson Peak (2015)

Film: Crimson Peak (2015)
Stars: Mia Wasikowska, Jessica Chastain, Tom Hiddleston, Charlie Hunnam, Jim Beaver
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The films of Guillermo del Toro are ones that I generally like more in theory than in practice.  My first encounter with one of his movies was a doozy, the brilliant and excellent Pan's Labyrinth, still one of my favorite movies from the mid-Aughts.  However, everything after that for some reason hasn't really clicked.  I didn't like Pacific Rim except for the Charlie Hunnam-exploitation, and the Hellboy movies left me a bit cold and uninspired.  His films are visual feats, especially in the ways that he crushes on his favorite color of red, but the substance is almost always lacking and the story is thin.  The movies rely upon rather predictable plots, which shows in this handsomely-executed and occasionally amusingly-acted piece that still is utterly predictable and lacks some of the scares you'd hope for from a horror movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Edith Cushing (Wasikowska), a young woman of a considerable fortune in the turn of the 20th Century who wishes to become the next Mary Shelley, writing stories about ghosts when publishers demand she consider romance instead.  She is pursued initially by a handsome doctor Alan McMichael (Hunnam), but instead falls for the charming but enigmatic Sir Thomas Sharpe (Hiddleston), who woos her away after her father's untimely death to be his wife, living alongside his harsh and domineering sister Lucille (Chastain).  As the film progresses, Edith becomes sick and is haunted by the spirits of women who died violent deaths in the house, all the while realizing that her husband and his sister are involved in an incestuous relationship and are slowly poisoning her.

The film's predictability is really one of its major downfalls.  The thing is that in an era where we are trained to expect a twist (M. Night Shyamalan has left his mark in that regard), the film's straight-forwardness is in some ways refreshing.  We don't need to have a random dead main character to make this film stand out.  However, the film feels almost like it drags as a result of the lack of suspense.  The initial idea about Thomas and Lucille (that they're an incestuous brother-and-sister pair of fortune-seekers) is actually what happens, which causes the film to be kind of dull.  Horror movies rely upon surprises and the occasional shock death to keep their films moving, but Crimson Peak has no surprises-what you see is what you get, and as a result we never get the sense that Edith is in any real danger.  The film's ending results in her running away with Alan and ending up fleeing the mansion, while a dead Lucille becomes the new ghostly lady-of-the-house.  This is exactly what you'd have expected upon the first trailer, and the film doesn't have enough oomph to really sell such a predictable premise.

This is a problem not of anyone really involved, but because the film feels more like a series of portions rather than a cohesive vision.  The actors are all good, particularly Chastain as the creepy Agnes Moorehead-style sister, and the set decoration/costumes are divine to behold.  The effects are appropriately gory (someone's been watching The Knick), and the eyes get a series of truly great images, particularly the house with the roof that won't mend.  However, nothing seems to fit together.  Each scene feels more like a vignette rather than something that makes sense with the previous moment.  We never get a reason, for example why everyone seems to marvel at Edith, who has man flaunting after her despite her bookish disposition and nose-turned-up attitude.  We also don't get why Edith didn't scoop up Alan right away considering her need for her father's favor and the fact that Alan is a sweet, nice guy who also happens to be a brick house.  The entire story, in fact, surrounding Thomas and his allure evades me.  Hiddleston is appropriately attractive and we do get to see some male nudity as he constantly promised on Graham Norton, but his character is kind of a wimp and it's hard to see what his appeal to Lucille is, considering she's the sharper and stronger player in the relationship.  With a lack of suspense in the film, these loopholes start to make more sense and the movie, which feels plucked from a mystery novel of the time, can't quite modernize the tale enough to translate well to the cinema.

That being said, I'm going with three stars here because it's still interesting even if it's not particularly great.  It's the sort of film that if it looks appealing, you won't leave without having enjoyed what you saw, and if you aren't interested, there's nothing to surprise.  This isn't Pan's Labyrinth, a film that would convert new del Toro patrons, but it's not a movie that will alienate the current fanbase.  Like Quentin Tarantino in a lot of ways, del Toro seems to be stuck in his own shadow and hype, but he's still good enough to not make totally narcissistic work (quite yet).

Those were my thoughts on Crimson Peak, what are yours?  Did anyone love the film or hate it (it evaded a meh from me except for some acting and visuals)?  What do you think are its Oscar chances?  And what do you want to see next from Guillermo del Toro?

The Deep Blue Sea (2012)

Film: The Deep Blue Sea (2012)
Stars: Rachel Weisz, Tom Hiddleston, Simon Russell Beale, Ann Mitchell
Director: Terence Davies
Oscar History: None, though Weisz scored a Golden Globe nomination
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

I have never seen one of the cerebral, hyper-intelligent films of Terence Davies, and was terribly bummed when I missed this film in theaters, and so am glad that Netflix decided it was time for me to see the movie.  As I am not previously acquainted with Davies' films, I didn't 100% know what to expect, and have to admit that I was deeply excited by the beautiful, etched emotional struggles of this movie, and the astounding work that's on display amongst the actors, in particular Rachel Weisz.

(Spoilers ahead) The film tells the tale of Hester Collyer (Weisz), a woman who opens the film with a suicide attempt which she survives, and the film then tells the tale of what happens that fateful day and what has happened to lead to that moment.  What has led to that moment is a marriage not necessarily without love (for her husband loves her even if she doesn't feel the same way), but without passion.  Hester has been raised to be a "proper wife" and has married a well-known judge (Beale), who has a domineering mother that is constantly dressing down both her son, and in particular, his younger bride.  Hester, despite the radical nature of this idea in 1950, when this story takes place, falls in love with a younger man named Freddie (Hiddleston) and stunningly decides to leave her husband and her life of comfort and stability to go with Freddie.  For the first time in her very proper, very staid life, she has found a burning, oftentimes reckless love, and a passion that excites her in a way nothing else has done before, and so she clings to it, even when it makes her do rash and dangerous things, and when she knows that he is not a proper match for her.

The film's beauty lies not just in this burning passion underneath, something the English do so well (think of The English Patient or The End of the Affair), but also in the fantastic overall structure of the film.  The movie floats as listlessly through the lives of these three people as they do the streets of a war-ravaged London.  The entire city still shows the scars of the war, and in an odd way seem to long for it-that sense of purpose and community that the war brought to them is gone, and now they are left in a land of ration books and slums.  Hiddleston's Freddie is largely lost without the war-an ace pilot, he is constantly recalling his role in the war, that sense of bravery and excellence he once hit, and seemingly cannot step out of the shadow of to rejoin modern society.  The film is also constantly recalling the music of the era and eras gone by, and in a spectacular sequence, we see a flashback to the war, where one man sings "Molly Malone," and people of all walks of life (the wealthy and the poor) sing along to the chorus.  Music always has the ability to make an impact in a film that other instruments cannot, but this is a scene that really has to be experienced to be believed-it's spectacularly moving and it sort of washes over you in a deep, melancholy wave of emotion.

The film lacks a central villain, which makes it far more interesting.  Neither Hester's husband nor her lover is a bad man, a man who has driven her to the other, but neither is a perfect man either, and so it seems understandable that Hester wants to explore this aspect of life, that uninhibitedness that she knows very little about and has never fathomed.  The film also doesn't stand in judgment of any of its characters, a huge plus for a love story (as it makes it more difficult to predict the ending), but it doesn't let them become saints or martyrs.  Freddie, exceedingly handsome and charming, is also not the intellectual or mature equal of Hester, and she loves him in spite of this.  Hester, despite having an affair, is not a character you loathe, nor a character you especially pity.  She is just a woman going with what her heart tells her because that's the only compass she believes in any longer.

The performances, as I mentioned, are top drawer.  Beale makes his judge a man of weakness given every advantage, but he is a man who knows that he wants Hester in his life, even if after a third of the film he banishes her from it (he does return, begging for her to come back to him, later in the film, but never apologizes for the lack of passion in their marriage).  Tom Hiddleston, who is part of that new wave of posh, scrawny/sexy actors that also includes Benedict Cumberbatch and Eddie Redmayne (Hiddleston is the best of the bunch, thus far), plays Freddie as a man trapped, who has obviously fallen in love with this woman, though not as much as she has fallen in love with him, as his first and strongest love is the war that he fought in and is trying desperately to reclaim.  Hiddleston does an excellent job of playing the character's more comic bits, making sure to exhibit the quick charm that made Hester fall in love with him, as well as the juvenile attributes (he knows little of art and literature, and is constantly losing his temper) that make him certainly unsuitable for her in the long-term.

At the film's heart, though, is Weisz, playing Hester by somehow balancing her proper upbringing with her new life's mission to follow her id, rather than what she knows society expects from her.  Weisz (and the director/writer) do this well by having Hester oftentimes speak second, not knowing what is expected from her in a situation, and not wanting to cross Freddie or make him upset, but also wanting him to notice her.  She has that complex of someone at a party, hoping and praying that someone will notice her, similar to Mary in Another Year, our previous review.  Unlike Mary, though, Hester won't accept being ignored, and will eventually venture into the conversation if no one invites her, once she's gained her bearings on what to say.  All of these instincts, her facial cues and final breakdown once she's realized that she's lost Freddie, are mesmerizing work from Weisz, an actress who started out in rather B-Grade fare like The Mummy and instead of following up her surprise Oscar-win with lots of plays for supporting roles in big-budget films (trying to cash in on her newfound notoriety by making an easy buck), she's gone the way of obscure art films and being the muse to random acclaimed directors.  She is an actress that gets little press as a result of this, and that seems a shame, as she's truly a marvel to behold onscreen when given the opportunity, and I love when an actress who could easily be so conventional decides to take artistic risks with her script choices.  That instinct suits her well here, as this performance ranks amongst her best.

And now, I'll give you some questions for thoughts-first off, what did you think of The Deep Blue Sea?    Were you satisfied with the film (and the ending), or were you expecting a more structured narrative or a more linear film?  And what are your thoughts on Rachel Weisz, a well-known actress who rarely gets her due from the critics or press?