Battle of the Sexes (2017)

Billie Jean King always spoke highly of her famous rival Bobby Riggs. They supposedly remained fiends until he died. She also remained friends with her ex husband after coming out as a lesbian and was named godmother to his children with his next wife. Riggs’s wife takes him back and they live out a happy life together. This story of overcoming sexism is couched in this very friendly, and rather safe, culture. The film embraces this dynamic going on to point all this out in the end ensuring that we all leave feeling good about everything.

The film is very sympathetic to all involved (with the one exception of Bill Pullman’s character, who gets to be the bad guy that we all hate. Otherwise the struggle against misogyny is presented as a cheerful, friendly struggle which had little harmful effects. It is like a fairy tale, and they all lived happily every after.

Other than feeling a bit disappointed in the sugarcoating Battle of the Sexes does to the whole issue it’s hard not to enjoy this film. Carell is astonishes charismatic as the man who exploits sexism for financial gain (I know... that’s my point). Stone is finally playing someone other than Emma Stone in a movie and its great to be reminded what an amazing actor she is, not just an amazing screen presence (which she also is). The film is feel good fodder for the multiplex crowd and its excellently done.

But I couldn’t help just feeling a little let down in the way it lets everyone off the hook. As historical fiction its great. I understand the film makers were going for a certain kind of movie. As. Feel good personal story it’s a triumph. Well filmed, performed, it’s an accessible and thoroughly enjoyable film. As a movie about the struggle to overcome oppression it leaves a lot to be desired.

Battle of the Sexes
Starring: Emma Stone, Steve Carell,  Andrea Riseborough, Sarah Silverman, Bill Pullman
Directors: Valerie Farris, Jonathan Dayton
Writer: Simon Beaufoy

Kingman the Golden Circle (2017)

The first Kingsman movie was a slight yet enjoyable romp, rather forgettable despite being visually spectacular and the charisma of stars Colin Firth and Taron Egerton. As the sequel was coming I felt it hard to muste excitement for another chapter despite enjoying the first. For me a big part of this has to do with the general irreverence which is a part of the approach the film makers have used. It is all rather tongue in cheek and doesnt take itself seriously. So it is hard to get to serious about loving this franchise. However the film remained enjoyable so why not go back to the well a second time?

After seeing the sequel, The Golden Circle, I still feel similarly. While once again enjoyable, the film remains rather forgettable and disposable. The film is funny with an entertaining and straight forward enough story to not be bored, but does it offer anything other than a good time? Sure that is good enough for most and I am not complaining but I am also not jumping up and down for the next chapter.

The film isn’t spoof yet borders on it, never quite committing to being full on ridiculous but never quite committing to its story for us to buy in. This is more disposable action/comedy which has its place and can be enjoyable. Mostly this is especially when it is walking that thin line the most successfully such as having Elton John in full Elton regalia beating up bad guys. The film fails mostly when its trying to build pathos (Eggsy’s pretty pathetic love story).

So looking for cheep thrills? Golden Circle is your ticket.

Kingsman the Golden Circle
Staring: Taron Egerton, Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Halle Berry, Mark Strong, Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, Elton John
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Writers: Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn

Lego Ninjago Movie (2017)

The Lego Movie surprised pretty much everyone with its clever conceit on creativity basically upending everything one would expect from a corporate branded film. The Lego Batman movie merged the self-aware formula from the first film with the breakout fan favorite character and its history to once again explore fascinating themes with its tongue in cheek pleasing shtick. The third big screen Lego film... well... basically does all the same stuff... and is starting to show the gimmick may have been played out??

Ninjago is based on a toy line which has already spawned a television series. The movie is only loosely tied to this creating pretty much an entirely new world, characters, and ideas which are more in tune with the Lego movie series. A team of secret ninjas, each with an elemental power, battle an evil tyrant who tries to take over the local city. The story, like other Lego movies, is absurdly funny while exploring ideas of identity and family. It's becoming a hallmark of the series and it is all starting to feel a bit repetitive. What felt fresh and remarkable is starting to feel been there done that.

With Ninjago, the theme of connection and family (also played out quite extensively in the Batman film) pushes too far into sentimentality and is also pursued a bit too obviously. I'm not sure if the formula has just been repeated too much by the time this film has rolled around or if the film just plays it all too on the nose. Basically I found Ninjago to just be all too familiar and not fresh enough to remain as entertaining as its predecessors. Ninjago is still funny and entertaining and while not stale per se it has loss its shine of originality. It is fine satisfying entertainment. But I am cautious about whether or not I can muster much excitement for another episode in the Lego movie franchise.

The Lego Ninjago Movie
Starring: Dave Franco, Justin Theroux, Jackie Chan, Olivia Munn
Directors:  Charlie Bean, Paul Fisher, Bob Logan
Writers: Bob Logan, Paul Fisher, William Wheeler, Tom Wheeler, Jared Stern, John Wittington

Batman and Harley Quinn (2017)

Batman the Animated Series may be my all time favorite representation of Batman, in any medium. So the idea of returning to that world in a new adventure after all these years, especially featuring one of the series original creations, fan fave Harley Quinn, seemed like a dream come true. I think I let me expectations get ahead of me as I read about series mastermind Bruce Timm's involvement. I was ready for a nostalgic return visit to one of my favorite places.

Perhaps you can't go home again, but you can come close.
While I enjoyed much of Batman and Harley Quinn, the film never quite reaches the heights of that series best moments. Still it truly captures the feel of that show and brings the energy back to life. The stylings and much of the plot feels straight out of the original series.

Pitting Harley against her old buddy Poison Ivy is a delight, especially when Harley (spoiler? not really) saves the day in the opposite way Batman would do it.

But there is a lot new I enjoyed too. The film skews more adult than BTAS and I loved the way Harley owned her own sexuality. Melissa Rauch nails the voice and mannerisms of the character to the point where I (almost) don't miss the great Miss Sorkin.

But the film feels just a little too silly much of the time. I get a film about Harley has to have a certain level of absurdity and BTAS had its share of ludicrousness but this script never quite sells its plot completely. Perhaps the missing element is Quinn's creator Paul Dini, who wasn't a part of this film.

Still, watching Batman and Harley Quinn felt like what it felt like when I watched BTAS in it's original run. Sure it's not the classic Harley and Ivy episode, but it sure approximated it.

Batman and Harley Quinn
Starring: Kevin Conroy, Melissa Rauch
Director: Sam Liu
Writers: Bruce Timm, Jim Krieg

Tulip Fever (2017)

Judy Dench, Christoph Waltz, Dane Dehaan, Zach Galifianakis, Cara Delevingne, Jack O'Connell, and Matthew Morrison. One would think a film with this cast would be headed towards Oscars. A period piece about a love scandal and flowers. It should be juicy and lovely and barely restrained. It many was Tulip Fever is all those things, well except Oscar bound. It's also just disjointed, messy, and lacking in the passion it needs to truly bloom.

The cast is wonderful and rather seductive as they fill up their gorgeously decorated sets in their fabulous costumes. But the film keeps jumping around, erratically put together so nothing feels grounded. Motivations come and go without explanation. Characters are drawn rather thinly. Relationships feel stilted and lack chemistry. I never felt I got a sense of what the characters were feeling or what I was to feel about that. Tom Stoppard's pen can't save this story from feeling like it just never quite comes together.

In all its beautiful mess, Tulip Fever never finds its heart and soul, never convinces us of the beauty it is celebrating. It is an honest try but wilts all too fast.

Tulip Fever
Starring: Judy Dench, Christoph Waltz, Dane Dehaan, Zach Galifianakis, Cara Delevingne, Jack O'Connell, and Matthew Morrison
Director: Justin Chadwick
Writer: Tom Stoppard

mother! (2017)

mother! is the sort of film designed to make us uncomfortable. Unlike a more typical "horror" film like the concurrent hit It, which shows us something horrible and terrifying and then gives us resolution so we can leave feeling redeemed, mother! is determined to make us feel destroyed. It is the kind of film that cinephiles like to talk about but does anyone really enjoy the experience of watching. Instead it is almost a badge of honor to have seen it, like bragging about enduring some difficult challenge. I've certainly read/heard comments after about how one doesn't ever need to see it again.

And then there is the endless discussion of "what does it mean?" I think there will be quite a few discussions about what mother! is about. I have my theories. I find writer/director Aronofsky's style rather too on-the-nose for my tastes most of the time and I think he tips his hand quite a bit here. His brutalist tendencies are more a matter of taste than of criticism for me, as I often prefer something more mysterious, more subtle. But there is a lot about what I think he's saying which resonates for me.

If one were to ask me if they should see mother! I would say it depends. You should see it if you are up for watching something disturbing and upsetting, and/or if you just want to be able to brag about having seen it, and/or if you want to be able to discuss some of the interesting themes and ideas kicking around in this work. You should definitely see it if you are an Aronofsky devotee and perhaps you should see it if you're a Jennifer Lawrence fanatic and need to see all of her work, although this is not quite like anything she has done since Winter's Bone and even that doesn't prepare you for mother! 

You shouldn't see mother! if you're looking for a horror film, not in the way we typically understand what "horror" is. You shouldn't see it if you are easily upset by disturbing images and situations. You shouldn't see it if you do not enjoy Aronofsky's style or appreciate his artistry. You shouldn't see it if you aren't looking for a mindbending trip and just want escapist entertainment.

I'm glad I saw it. I didn't enjoy it enough to sit through it again. But the ideas within it are things that are fascinating and are things I want to return to again and wrestle with.

Spoilers ahead... sort of...

I saw two main things going on here, and I see them as connected. Aronofsky tells a tale of loving exploitation and sacrifice on the most basic level. Bardem's character so loves Lawrence but also loves "his fellow man" (humanity?) to the point he betrays her again and again creating a cycle of violence. I saw Bardem as God, the Judaeo-christian idea of God, and I think it's hard not to as Aronofsky uses very blatant biblical references throughout from Adam and Eve imagery through Cain and Able (especially literal here), all the way to God giving his only son to be killed by mankind. Lawrence is the homemaker (literally), beautiful creation, being trampled, exploited, brutalized by that same mankind. And as much as Bardem loves her, his love and compassion and forgiveness for mankind allows her to be victimized again and again. Humanity is vicious in Aronofsky's eye.

But one can't help but see the gendered aspects of this story too. Bardem is a man and has all the qualities of stereotypical good maleness. He is wise, protective, caring, providing, creative, a natural leader. Lawrence is female and exhibits all the qualities of stereotypical good femaleness. She is nurturing, accommodating, sacrificing, loving, the source of life. Sun/Earth. Patriarch/Matriarch. When the first man and woman appear they exhibit the non-desirable qualities of their male and female attributes. We are seeing the abuse of women, the exploitation of women and the way it is normalized in our world. I see Aronofsky connecting the genders to the concepts of western religious ideas. Our western concepts of creation and religion tied to ideas of gender feed into this cycle of abuse, destruction, and the evil that men do.

As I watched mother!, even the most stomach turning moments, I was fascinated with the reflection on this anger towards God, or our understanding of God. The idea of unconditional love leading to violence actually being the cause of that violence is an idea that I will wrestle with for a long time. Did mother! entertain me as a movie? Probably not. Aronofsky's one track visions felt bombastic most of the time. But did it set my mind reeling? Certainly.

So should you see it?

mother!
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Domhnall Geelson, Brian Gleeson, Kristen Wiig
Writer/Director: Darren Aronofsky

Patti Cake$ (2017)

Yes Patti Cake$ is all about making us feel good. Patti Cake$ is the classic underdog/outcast making good on her dreams but despite seeing this story a hundred times before, Patti Cake$ remains consistently fresh and exhilarating. Director Geremy Jasper charms the pants off us with his energetic on a budget take and breakout star Danielle MacDonald is undeniably captivating as Patti.

Patti lives the New Jersey nightmare. Surrounded by all the reasons she can't be what her dreams tell her, she perseveres, spurred on by her BFF Jheri, a pharmacist by day who envisions himself as a rapper as well, Patti (or "Killer P") pushes for a career in rapping and blows away anyone who watches her. Jasper's stylistic approach to showcasing MacDonald makes us believe in her and her troupe (PBNJ), makes us think they could be the big stars they want to be, that they can escape the Jersey that traps them. Even her romance with the silent and tenderhearted anti-christ/anarchist Basterd (or Bob as his parents call him) is something we can't help but cheer on.

But it is in the smaller more difficult moments that MacDonald really shines. Her difficult, complicated relationship with her damaged mother (played wonderfully by Bridget Everett) is one of the highlights of the movie. Painful yet filled with pathos, this mother and daughter go through the wringer and end up still rockin' on.

Patti Cake$ is that kind of festival film that makes crowds stand up and applaud and keeps us talking, or in this case rapping. Her rhymes are solid and catchy and it's hard not to hum Tuff Love to yourself as you're leaving Patti Cake$ with a big damn smile on your face.

Patti Cake$
Starring: Danielle MacDonald, Bridget Everett, Siddharth Dhananjay, Mamoudou Athie, Cathy Moriarty
Writer/Director: Geremy Jasper

Rememory (2017)

Rememory is fairly standard thriller fare whose gimmick actually gets in the way more than it helps. It centres around a technology which allows the "recording of memories." After the death of the technology's creator, an investigation into his death begins. Rememory hits all the standard beats but never gets into a compelling groove. It never gives us a reason to care who the killer is or why.

But the biggest flaw with Rememory is the film's actual gimmick. The technology doesn't really make any sense and the film doesn't give a realistic portrayal of it. Also it doesn't find a way to make the "recordings" we see feel vivid. Director Mark Palansky just takes the most basic of perspectives, first person view point, and other wise films memories exactly as he films the rest of his movie, only in short clips. His rememberors only remember things in short snippets.

And the biggest problem with this film, the problem that kept eating at me as I watched it, was how the film treats memories as static, objective things which are deadly accurate and immutable. That's not how I understand memories at all. First of all memories are our understanding of an experience. Second they change over time as we become more removed from that experience. Ask any cop for example. They can tell you if they ask 6 witnesses about a crime they will get 6 different versions of the event. And as time goes on those versions may alter, may be effected by the persons' biases, mental health, point of view, desires, etc. In Rememory memories are like a video camera. The film does nothing to address the etherialness of memory and in ignoring this, reduces itself to a simplistic crime story.

Sure the film tries to redeem itself with its sort-of twist ending but that twist still relies on its lack of imagination relating to memory.  Rememory is a missed opportunity, both to tell an interesting story based on this concept and to give star Peter Dinklage a captivating role. Unfortunately you will quickly forget Rememory.

Rememory 
Starring: Peter Dinklage, Julia Ormond, Anton Yelchin
Director: Mark Palansky
Writer: Michael Dukadinovich, Mark Palansky

It Chapter One (2017)

Even as a child the original filmed adaption of Stephen King's novel It never scared me. And the sad part of that is that It is all about fear. That's the point. It is about what scares us, how fear is used to control use, how American life is built on fear, and how overcoming fear is the secret to freedom, especially through relying on each other. So an It movie that isn't scary is a disappointment, it's a missed opportunity.

It is a long novel. I remember at the time of the book It's release there was a play on the irony of a long book with a short title, perhaps the shortest. And what often is required for a film adaptation to work is for the film to take the time to tell its story. Fitting a story into under 2 hours is often a fault of films. The original, made for TV movie allowed for more time as it spread the story out over 2 nights. The film version attempts this by breaking the story into its two (very logical) parts.

It follows the story of a group of self-named "losers" (Trump would hate them) who are terrorized (literally) by an entity (the "It" of the title) at two periods in their lives, as children and as adults. The film It Part One only addresses the children's story although it hints at the adult second chapter. This allows director Andres Muschietti to spend time on each character's story, giving them a full, rounded back story, letting us relate to each. This is the best part of It. We get to truly feel, empathize, and experience the point of view of the subjects.

Muschietti then explores all the ways their fear is tearing at them. Set in the 80s, Muschietti explores the sexism, racism, classicism, homophobia, etc. permeating their small town American lives and the way that contributes to their fears. In doing so he creates a journey far more interesting and impactful than a typical horror film. It's not just about overcoming some monster, it's about struggling against the nature of existence itself. It also explores how unity, how sticking together, is the secret to overcoming that horror.

My only main fault with It is one I know I am in the minority for. I found the day to day lives of these kids terrifying, but I didn't find Pennywise scary. I know, clowns are scary and Pennywise is all the things we are supposed to be afraid of in horror movies. But I felt the film threw him at us too much, didn't leave him in the shadows enough, CGI'd him a bit to strongly, so he didn't feel real.

You see, as I understand the point of the character is that he is being what we think we are to be scared of. There is some poetry in that and I think the film gets it. But by being overly what a horror movie audience is supposed to be scared of, he becomes reduced to a standard horror movie trope, and loses his power to scare. I was far more interested in fearing the abuse the kids were suffering and their isolation than I was in the "scary clown." I think Pennywise would have worked for me much more if he had been used more sparingly and was just more hinted it.

But having said that It is a triumph, a clever, thought provoking, and upsetting film which entertains and offers the promise of something even more frightening to come.

It
Starring: Jaeden Lieberher, Bill Skarsgard, Sophia Lillis, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Finn Wolfhard, Wyatt Oleff, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer
Director: Andy Muschietti
Writers: Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, Gary Dauberman

The Glass Castle (2017)

Based on a memoir, The Glass Castle film is a bit of a disjointed narrative which oscillates between somewhat horrific dysfunctional family drama and what I believe was meant to be healing. The film's overarching story about finding forgiveness for those you love who hurt you, mostly feels contrived as the film never gets us to a place where we can feel the honesty of that forgiveness. Instead, after scene after scene of abuse and neglect, we are to just accept Larson's tightly wound character's arc but are never given enough to truly believe it.

Larson (teaming up again with her Short Term 12 director, Destin Daniel Cretton) plays a grown up Jeanette who has escaped a life of poverty and abuse thrust upon her by her counter-culture, alcoholic, abusive father (Woody Harrelson) and her enabling artist mother (Naomi Watts). She is now living a successful life in 1980s NYC with all the trappings that come with it, the expensive apartment, handsome stock broker husband, shoulder pads, and big hair. She spends the whole film pursing her lips and clutching her pearls so we know that she really isn't happy.

We flash back through her unconventional upbringing and see her dad act out numerous times, interlaced with some poignant moments where we are supposed to see he truly loves her under all that gas-lighting. The film never finds an equilibrium between the manic extremes to make us see any semblance of possibility. But when the film has run two hours it needs us to get some resolution. Suddenly dad is dying, suddenly she remembers happy memories to show us, hey he's not such a bad guy, and suddenly she has left her marriage which the film never once establishes as anything other than stable and satisfying.

So the film careens towards its inevitable conclusion and we're all supposed to feel that sort of relief that it can all work out in the end and we can find peace and forgiveness despite the trauma. But the film just doesn't do the work to earn that. It never gets us to a place where we can feel that redemption. So it's as forced as Larson's hyper-hairsprayed coif and about as realistic.

The Glass Castle
Starring: Brie Larson, Woody Harrelseon, Naomi Watts
Director: Destin Daniel Cretton
Writers: Destin Daniel Cretton, Andrew Lanham, Marti Noxon