Justice League [2017] ★★½
Forgive me fanboys for I have sinned: I didn’t see “Justice League” upon its release, and it took a long plane ride to Canada to convince me to watch it. Early reviews weren’t too encouraging, to say the least, but now that the dust has settled, it’s interesting to look at “Justice League” from a different perspective. Is it bad? No. Good? Far from it. I guess it falls somewhere in between. It isn’t innovative in any way, the characters aren’t particularly well developed, and it’s far from being as fun as “Avengers” (especially “Infinity War”, which truly raised the bar). But I still had a fun time watching it. I guess at that point I knew exactly what I was getting myself into, so my expectations were more or less low. You probably know how things went down by now: Superman supposedly died in “Batman Vs Superman”, and it’s up to Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) to recruit a group of superheroes to stand against a new threat. You’ve got Wonder Woman, The Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman, and they’re all interesting characters. Aside from Wonder Woman, I wish the other characters had their own stand-alone film before “Justice League” (Aquaman comes out in December and I’m looking forward to that). I guess the worst thing I can say about this movie is that it doesn’t have a great villain, and superhero movies are only as good as their villains. But despite all that, it wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. Will people still remember it years from now? Probably not. But for what it’s worth, I enjoyed seeing all these characters together in one movie.
I’m calling bullshit on this film’s flashy marketing strategy. By telling people that “this Spanish original film is so terrifying that people can’t watch to the end”, Netflix got my attention. But now that I’ve finally seen the film, I can tell you that none of this is true. Sure, it’s an intriguing story about a young girl who finds herself haunted by evil spirits following a seance gone wrong. Sandra Escacena delivers the kind of thrills that you would expect from a horror film. But there’s nothing about it that truly terrified me. Maybe I’m looking too much into that “terrifying” statement, but yes, it bugged me. I wanted “Veronica” to scare the shit out of me. It didn’t. So where exactly does my opinion fall? I guess it’s somewhere in between. Despite a few scares here and there, “Veronica” is far from being original. Horror buffs, you’ve been warned.
While it doesn’t add anything new to Woody Allen’s fruitful career, it’s difficult to dismiss his latest film, “Wonder Wheel”, just because I had a good time watching it. It has an abundance of eye candy and an amusing cast, making it entertaining enough for any Allen fan. We’re in Coney Island this time around, the year is 1950, and Kate Winslet is unhappily married to Jim Belushi, a carousel operator who drinks too much. In true Woody Allen fashion, Winslet finds refuge in Mickey (Justin Timberlake), a young lifeguard who makes her fall under his spell. Once again, Allen has crafted an elegant film that’s easy to get lost in. There isn’t much to say about the plot, simply because it never truly rises above the routine, but everything else, from the music to the acting, is top-notch. I wouldn’t call “Wonder Wheel” original, or memorable for that matter, but I enjoyed the experience of watching it and sometimes, that’s good enough for me to recommend a film.
The Oscar for best actor in a leading role goes to Gary Oldman. His brilliant performance as Prime Minister Winston Churchill is the best, and probably only reason to see this slice of history. Of the movie itself, I can’t say I loved it. I suppose there’s no other way of depicting a history lesson without resorting to endless dialogues. That can be exhausting, especially for a film that clocks in at 2 hours. The year is 1940. Hitler and Nazism were on the rise. “Darkest Hour” refers to a dark time in British history. When Churchill accepted the post of Prime Minister, he had zero support from the people surrounding him. The movie focuses on Churchill’s efforts to win a nation over and show the people that he’s more than capable to win a war. As a history buff, I was more than hooked. But even an avid history fan will have to admit that this one feels a bit dry and uneven at times. What keeps it afloat is the mesmerizing work of its star. Oldman goes beyond mimicry to fully inhabit his character. Director Joe Wright steers him well, but it’s a shame the movie isn’t truly worthy of this sensational performance.
Luca Guadagnino’s devastating and unforgettable “Call Me By Your Name” hits you like a shot in the heart. In detailing the relationship between 17-year-old Elio Perlman (a wonderful Timothée Chalamet) and an older man (Armie Hammer) during the summer of 1983, Guadagnino takes us on a roller coaster ride of emotions and heartbreak. Both actors wear their hearts on their sleeves, which makes the movie vulnerable, especially with the constant rise of homophobia in this corner of the earth. But with lines like “How you live your life is your business”, the movie is up against it, and rightfully so. Guadagnino and his gifted cinematographer transform Andre Aciman’s novel into visual poetry. Shooting in the north of Italy, the movie is simply beautiful to look at. Of course, none of this would matter if the actors didn’t deliver the goods. Chalamet finds the sentimental core of Elio, while Hammer’s Oliver lives in fear of coming out (he doesn’t even have to say it). “Call me by your name and I’ll call you by mine” he tells Elio during the film’s most intimate scene. Both actors are brilliant, wearing their characters like second skins. “Call me be your Name” is a uniquely rewarding film, pulling you in before it sneaks up and quietly breaks your heart.
88-year-old Christopher Plummer is sensational in Ridley Scott’s drama “All the Money in the World”. But it almost didn’t happen. That’s right. A month before its release, a scandal involving Kevin Spacey broke, and Scott had to re-shoot his scenes with Plummer instead to avoid a box-office disaster. So yes, kudos to Scott for pulling off the impossible. And kudos to Plummer for delivering a terrific performance as billionaire John Paul Getty, a Scrooge-like figure (one might even compare him to Charles Foster Kane from “Citizen Kane”), who, in 1973, refused to pay the ransom of his 16-year-old grandson, who was kidnapped in Rome. His mom, played by Michelle Williams, isn’t willing to give up, which leads to a series of intriguing events. Like many of Ridley Scott’s features, “All the Money in the World” is gripping and exceptionally well made. There are a few bumps along the way, but I can’t dismiss any movie that kept me on the edge of my seat until the very last seconds. And Plummer, giving it his best shot, is reason enough to recommend this tightly scripted family affair. What more can you ask for? As Getty himself would put it: “Nothing”.
Guillermo Del Toro makes movies like no other filmmaker. If you’ve seen “The Devil’s Backbone” and “Pan’s Labyrinth”, you probably know the scale of his vision. But nothing could have prepared me for his latest masterpiece: a beautifully crafted, visually stunning love letter to cinema that ranks among his best films. Other Hollywood movies may boast great special effects, but Del Toro has created a world of wonder, and I found myself completely immersed in it. How many times can you say that these days? Sally Hawkins (in the best performance of her career) plays a mute woman who works as a cleaning lady in a top-secret government lab . The year is 1962, the Cold War is in full force, and the government is experimenting on a South American sea creature, which holds many mysteries. One night, Hawkins accidentally meets our amphibian man, which leads to a series of incredible events. I know I’ve said the word “immersive” before but that’s the best way to describe the way I lost myself in this film, with its captivating story, terrific performances, and wonderful music by Alexandre Desplat. Del Toro has said that he found inspiration for this movie when he was 6 years old, and it’s been a long process ever since. In a perfect world, “The Shape Of Water” will swipe every Oscar out there. At the very least, it will show audiences what a great filmmaker can do when he is truly inspired by his material. If you find yourself looking away for one second, you’d be cheating yourself. This is a beautiful movie you’ll want to savor, from start to finish. It truly is the stuff that dreams are made of.
I’ve been a huge Martin McDonagh fan for at least a decade now. His movie “In Bruges” won me over completely and I still have fond memories of his underrated “Seven Psychopaths”. That being said, I didn’t fully appreciate his latest film, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”, despite its critical acclaim (and the fact that it was nominated for 7 Oscars). Everyone is different I guess, and while a lot of critics heaped praise on it, I have to respectfully disagree. I’ll say this though: Frances McDormand is sensational as a mother who takes matters into her own hands when the local police couldn’t solve the murder of her young daughter. The police chief (Woody Harrelson, as good as always) has done his very best, but not enough according to the grieving mother, who decides to rent three billboards outside the small town to express her anger. The premise doesn’t look or sound like anything I’ve seen this year, and I have to admire McDonagh’s efforts to put a stamp on everything he does. But after a while, my mind started to wander. While this unusual story is well acted and meticulously crafted, down to the tiniest detail, it’s not a film that I loved. Aside from McDormand’s character, I just couldn’t sympathize with anyone else. And when it was time for the climax, I had already lost interest in the story. I admire and respect what McDonagh and his collaborators have created. They’ve given us a unique moviegoing experience, and that’s no small achievement. I just have to be honest with my reaction: I didn’t love “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”.
Whether he’s teaching us a wine lesson in “Sideways” or simply taking us on a road trip with a father and his son in “Nebraska”, director Alexander Payne has managed to put a personal stamp on everything he does. I didn’t love his newest film, “Downsizing”, and come to think of it this is a first for me with Payne movies. I admire its premise, about a man (Matt Damon) who realizes he needs to shrink himself in order to live a happier life without the burden of wealth. You can’t ask for a better story to hook you in, but the end result is a serious misfire. What starts out as a social satire soon turns into a man’s quest to find himself. I wouldn’t have minded such a turn of events if the second part of the film had some surprises up its sleeves, but it doesn’t. It seems Payne and his collaborators had a half-baked idea on their mind and had no idea what to do with it. It shows, especially during the disastrous final act. Too bad. Payne has given us so many unique experiences over the years; sorry to say, “Downsizing” isn’t one of them.
Let's Talk About Movies 