The Official Review Thread of 2020

[Big Magilla]

MINARI
Cast: Steven Yeun, Yeri Han, Alan Kim, Noel Chow, Yuh-jung Youn, Will Patton.
Dir: Lee Isaac Chung.

What a wonderful film. It's now available on pay-per-view in the U.S., so no more excuses for not seeing it other than it's not affordable but it costs no more than a ticket for two at a theatre which you can't go to now anyway.

The film evokes films of a by-gone era, among them 1945's The Southerner and 1946's The Yearling in which hardships are endured by strong multi-generational families. Steven Yeun, like Zachary Scott and Gregory Peck in those films, is a dreamer as well as a hard worker, while his wife, Yeri Han, like Betty Field and Jane Wyman in the earlier films is supportive but wary. The kids in it are very good, especially Andy Kim as the 8-year-old with a hole in his heart, both literally and figuratively.

It's rare to a see a full-fledged relationship between a grandmother and grandson on screen, but this year we have two. This one brings back memories of The Green Years in which Dean Stockwell is forced to share a room with his great-grandmother (Gladys Cooper) as are Andy Kim and Yuh-jung Youn (the Anglicized version of her name is used in the credits, not the other way around) here.

In the best of all possible worlds, this year's other grandmother, Glenn Close, would have already won an Oscar or two and Yuh-jung Youn would be this year's clear front-runner for a role that has already won her the lion's share of critics' awards.

Oscar Prospects: Nominations galore, and hopefully, a win for Yuh-jung Youn.

[anonymous1980]

JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH
Cast: Daniel Kaluuya, LaKeith Stanfield, Jesse Plemons, Dominique Fishback, Martin Sheen, Ashton Sanders, Lil Rey Howery, Algee Smith, Darrell Britt-Gibson, Dominique Thorne.
Dir: Shaka King.

This is the story of William O'Neal, an FBI informant who was recruited to spy on Fred Hampton, one of the leaders of the Black Panther movement. This film is based on a true story and if you know anything about it, you probably know how it's going to end. But even then, it still manages to milk some suspense out of it and makes this film all the more compelling. As we all know, this film is sadly still relevant to this day. Daniel Kaluuya is as great as the reviews and his awards run indicate. His performance in the scenes featuring Fred Hampton's "I am a revolutionary" speeches made me wanna stand up and chant along with him. His performance is that great. LaKeith Stanfield matches him as the Judas in this story to his Black Messiah. Yes, I think this is one of the best films of the (awards) year.

Oscar Prospects: I hope this gets nominated across the board and not just Kaluuya.

Grade: A-

[anonymous1980]

I CARE A LOT
Cast: Rosamund Pike, Peter Dinklage, Eiza Gonzalez, Dianne Wiest, Chris Messina, Isiah Whitlock Jr., Macon Blair.
Dir: J Blakeson.

A con woman makes her living becoming a legal guardian for the elderly but is really fleecing them for their money. That is until one target turned out to be a someone connected to the Russian mafia. This is a very enjoyable black comedy thriller with neo-noir elements that even though I could see some of the twists coming, it's still manages to be enjoyable. This is thanks to the fun performances of the cast headed by Rosamund Pike and Peter Dinklage. Dianne Wiest is excellent too but there's not enough of her (she was great in the handful of scenes she was in and it's a shame she wasn't in it more). Plus the film's third act seems to go on a bit too long. But all in all, solid enough but it didn't exactly reinvent the wheel.

Oscar Prospects: Rosamund Pike is an extreme possibility.

Grade: B.

[Reza]

News of the World can’t quite decide whether it wants to be an entertaining Western or a serious piece of history and it ends up not quite being either. But it’s one of Hanks’ most interesting protagonists in a while as well as a very interesting location (unrestored Texas as a rabble-rouser purgatory). I think I might’ve rather seen them both in a bleaker movie, but it’s a pretty good if too forgettable slice of Dadness.

Most of Tom Hanks' vehicles are good but there is a touch of blandness about all of them. He keeps being compared to James Stewart. It's about time he took that comparison seriously and dip into the Anthony Mann-James Stewart mode and start kicking ass a bit. Mr Nice-Guy no longer cuts it for him. A little negative spice needs to be added into his characters. Even Stewart reinvented his career after years of playing the awshucks Mr Nice-Guy. Hanks should do the same and get out of his comfort zone. Unfortunately very few stars in mainstream Hollywood want to take the risk.

Having said that this is a wonderful western overall and an interesting addition to the genre. It just falls short of taking it into classic territory. I liked it a lot but then I'm a sucker for the genre.

[Sabin]

News of the World can’t quite decide whether it wants to be an entertaining Western or a serious piece of history and it ends up not quite being either. But it’s one of Hanks’ most interesting protagonists in a while as well as a very interesting location (unrestored Texas as a rabble-rouser purgatory). I think I might’ve rather seen them both in a bleaker movie, but it’s a pretty good if too forgettable slice of Dadness.

[dws1982]

Welcome to Chechnya
Much more of a journalism documentary than one that shows any unique perspective on its subject, although to be fair, what "unique perspective" can one form on a dictatorial puppet regime trying to murder and torture all LGBTQ people out of existence? It's not like there's a defensible against-the-grain take on the issue. But I guess my issue is that, despite the extreme up-close access to people in extremely difficult and dangerous situations, much of the filmmaking is pretty rote and standard, and it never really goes beyond, "This is a bad situation and you should be mad at it", which, to be fair, it is, and we should be.

The visual effects and the identity protection is the one thing that will be influential and will probably become a standard approach in documentaries going forward. Documentaries that shoot subjects in deep shadow lose something in that you really only get to hear the subjects talk (and even then, their voices are often distorted), but with the way shot the substitute faces--by replicating the lighting conditions of the original shots and using algorithms to replicate facial expressions--you get an actual feel for the emotion that they're dealing with. And many scenes simply wouldn't be possible if they weren't putting putting new faces over the subjects--especially a very tense scene of a young lady escaping the country illegally under the guise of going to visit family members. (A shame the movie kind of drops her and her story a little bit abruptly.) It never tries to hide the fact that the faces we're seeing are not the real faces. There's always a blur around the edges of their faces that is noticeable, and if the visual effects can put a convincing face over someone the way they do here (and the faces are convincing), I'm sure they could have cleared out the blur, but I think it wants us to remember the risk these people are taking on by not just being in this documentary but by living their lives in Chechnya and then trying to get out (and working with organizations to help others get out). And knowing that we aren't seeing the real person makes, in my opinion, the reveal in the last 20 minutes or so, when the "mask" drops for one of the subjects and we see his real face, as if he's finally taking back his identity, pretty powerful. I don't think this is our Documentary winner, but if the visual effects job starts getting enough talk I could see it as a dark horse winner in a strange and weak lineup.

[anonymous1980]

NEWS OF THE WORLD
Cast: Tom Hanks, Helena Zengel.
Dir: Paul Greengrass.

A Civil War veteran making his living going around reading the news in various towns stumbles upon an orphaned girl and takes it upon himself to bring her safely to her surviving family. This is from director Paul Greengrass and I must say, it's the least Paul Greengrass-y film I've ever seen him do. There's far less of that handheld camera. There's far less action and the pacing is slower. It's still an extremely well-crafted film. The cinematography is beautiful (I saw this on Netflix and I was wishing I was seeing this on the big screen). The production is impeccable. The acting is great (Tom Hanks and Helena Zengel work well together). But there's something missing that would take this from being good to being great. This is a nice, solid, old-fashioned Western overall.

Oscar Prospects: Deserving of Cinematography, Score and Sound.

Grade: B.

[Sabin]

I enjoyed Kajillioniare more than Miranda July's other films which also made it more frustrating that it didn't stick the landing. The idea of a dysfunctional family full of con artists who raise a daughter into adulthood to be a witting tool in their ongoing survival only for an outsider to spark change is a lovely idea. It's like Running on Empty but the antagonist is poverty. They run petty minor cons to keep surviving for another day. July finds a nice combination fo melancholy and quirky that works better than I find her work usually does. And it benefits from an outsider (Gina Rodriguez) in their group who is a breath of fresh air. I'm surprised Rodriguez hasn't picked up any traction for her performance in this film. Evan Rachel Wood is also the best she's been in ages as Old Dolio (yes, there's a reason that's her name).

The biggest problem with Kajillionaire is that the stakes are really low. It all builds towards an emotional payoff about how Richard Jenkins and Debra Winger weren't great parents. This is a very insular world. There's no other families of con artists. There's no police on their trail. Even the act of paying rent is slightly kooky. Maybe it's more realistic in that sense but it feels to me like a slightly missed opportunity for urgency. But even worse, it leads to a meandering, conversational second act. I get the impression that Miranda July knew how to start the movie and end it but that's about it. There's lots of nice little moments. For a little while, I got excited that Miranda July had landed on a great film.

[Sabin]

A friend told me something I think applies to The Little Things. A movie with one cliche is frustrating. A movie that’s all cliches can be fun. The Little Thing would’ve been cliched when it was written in the early 90’s, but perhaps with a little bit of that early 90’s energy it might’ve had some rude charm to it. Today, it’s a curio. It feels both too short and too long. I don’t know why it exists. Denzel Washington barely seems engaged. Rami Malek is horribly miscast — more so than anyone I’ve seen in a while. I mean, Rami Malek is terrible in this film. It took me a moment to realize “Oh, he’s not the killer. He’s just the foil.” Maybe the hot shot or the rookie. And then Jared Leto shows up from another movie. It’s a very silly performance but I was grateful for the energy.

John Lee Hancock shoots it professionally but without energy or inspiration, which is a shame because style is just about all this movie could’ve hoped for. I sill say, it’s a lot easier to like in retrospect after it mostly sticks the landing, but it’s a slog getting there.

[Sabin]

Reza wrote
This is actually a great war film and one of the year's best. I'm surprised its getting no traction for awards. The fact that it feels like a video game was probably intentional because one feels one is right in there with the soldiers perfectly catching how war in Afghanistan has been through the centuries. An impossible feat which the British realized during their years in India. No amount of military tactic worked on the pathans due to that relentless terrain and the peoples' inbred instinct for survival despite all efforts to subjugate them. Every dynasty before and during the Mughal era, the Brits, the Russians and the Americans have all failed in Afghanistan.

I'm not sure I quite conveyed my level of enthusiasm for the film in my capsule. To be fair, I'm trying to be a bit measured. Had I seen this on the big screen, it would've been a more visceral experience. I was moved but very often in this film I was pulled out by the clunky acting (especially by Scott Eastwood), the clunky dialogue, the jingoistic spirit, and the video game maneuvering. I think it's being very charitable to say that "It's filmed like a video game because that's what it must be like." At this point, that's a cliche. It's missing a clearer statement about what The Outpost represents and the Afghanistan War. It's clear to me that the point of The Outpost is that we didn't take care of these men. We didn't have a clear vision fo the war. We didn't give them what they needed. They needed to take care of themselves, and the fact that they did is a miracle. I wanted the film to explore that idea a little bit more. Or at all.

What makes it work is the tightness of the budget and the enthusiasm of the participants. You can feel them going all out to make this movie happen. I found myself impressed by The Outpost's execution and its raison d'être without ever really being moved (with one exception) but had I seen it on the big screen, I might be a bit more confidence in my enthusiasm. I'm inclined to say it's a strong film. Had it been released in theaters, I have no doubt it would be up for Best Film Editing.

There is one standout performance in the film and that is Caleb Landry Jones. Had the film been released wide, I think he might be at least slightly in the conversation for Best Supporting Actor. We've seen this performance before: the coward who becomes brave. Except, he's not a coward. He's a marine who isn't used to this kind of duty. The film generally avoids archetypes in its effort to honor the soldiers (again: with the exception of Scott Eastwood who generally undermines the film by VERY distractingly acting like a young version of his Dad). But Caleb Landry Jones is very powerful, especially at the end. The film doesn't quite earn its coda but he makes it worthwhile.

[Reza]

The most remarkable thing about The Outpost is its ridiculous $18 mil budget, which breeds considerable creativity on the part of writer/director Rod Lurie. I've read the word "scrappy" used to describe it in the past. I don't think that's inappropriate. It's hardly a singular war movie but it has a good, clear-eyed view of the futility of the war in Afghanistan. Early in the film, we get a good look around at the terrain: it's just endless, uphill mountain, only low-ground. It's a powerful sight. The movie never quite matches it. Overall, it's a mixed bag: there are moments that feel like bad war movies or war video games, and casting Clint Eastwood's kid doesn't help. But the film has this intangible sense of purpose that quietly ripples underneath it that I found moving enough to recommend this film. I think the low budget helps to keep the bombast at bay.

I'm not sure I ever need to see another one again but I'd really like to keep reminding the world about the War in Afghanistan. It's worth seeing.

This is actually a great war film and one of the year's best. I'm surprised its getting no traction for awards. The fact that it feels like a video game was probably intentional because one feels one is right in there with the soldiers perfectly catching how war in Afghanistan has been through the centuries. An impossible feat which the British realized during their years in India. No amount of military tactic worked on the pathans due to that relentless terrain and the peoples' inbred instinct for survival despite all efforts to subjugate them. Every dynasty before and during the Mughal era, the Brits, the Russians and the Americans have all failed in Afghanistan.

Here is my review from when I saw it last July:

The Outpost (Rod Lurie, 2020) 9/10

Riveting combat film pits a small group of U.S. soldiers against hundreds of Talibans during a pitched battle in North-Eastern Afghanistan. "The Battle of Kamdesh" turned out to be the bloodiest engagement of the Afghan War in 2009 and the American soldiers who fought became the most decorated units of that 19-year conflict. Boxed in at the bottom of three steep mountains, just 14 miles from the Pakistani border, was an American army outpost built originally to engage the locals in community development projects. The outpost was under constant sniper threat so when the officials decided to close it down, the Talibans went on a rampage in a coordinated attack. Gripping film shows the young soldiers going about their daily routine with gallow humour, comraderie and interacting with local Afghan elders during the first hour of the film while occasionally warding off sniper attacks. The second hour puts the audience feet first into a pitched battle with bullets zipping fast and furious as the body count rises. A mostly unknown cast is led by a few familiar faces - Orlando Bloom and a bunch of star kids with famous surnames, Scott Eastwood, Milo Gibson, James Jagger, Will Attenborough, Scott Alda Coffey - playing the brave soldiers fighting for their lives. The extremely realistic combat scenes are a marvel of choreography, sharp editing, long camera takes (following one character in battle, then another) and exceptional sound design. The battle is very much in the same vein as in "Zulu" and during "Custer's Last Stand", with soldiers making a brave stand against impossible odds. Intense film is easily one of the year's best and must be seen on the biggest screen available during this Covid menace.

[Sabin]

The most remarkable thing about The Outpost is its ridiculous $18 mil budget, which breeds considerable creativity on the part of writer/director Rod Lurie. I've read the word "scrappy" used to describe it in the past. I don't think that's inappropriate. It's hardly a singular war movie but it has a good, clear-eyed view of the futility of the war in Afghanistan. Early in the film, we get a good look around at the terrain: it's just endless, uphill mountain, only low-ground. It's a powerful sight. The movie never quite matches it. Overall, it's a mixed bag: there are moments that feel like bad war movies or war video games, and casting Clint Eastwood's kid doesn't help. But the film has this intangible sense of purpose that quietly ripples underneath it that I found moving enough to recommend this film. I think the low budget helps to keep the bombast at bay.

I'm not sure I ever need to see another one again but I'd really like to keep reminding the world about the War in Afghanistan. It's worth seeing.

[mlrg]

Apparently I waited too long and YouTube switched to the next entry. This one works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn_9o6ugRUc

Epic

[Big Magilla]

Apparently I waited too long and YouTube switched to the next entry. This one works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn_9o6ugRUc

[mlrg]

While I was there, I watched most of the first episode of The Undoing for which Hugh Grant and Nicole Kidman also received Golden Globe nominations, before nodding off. It looks like a good one. Grant is at his droll best and Kidman so far is right up there with him.

It's a super campy show. The plot is full of holes up to the last episode.

Somewhere in episode 3 or 4 there is Donald Sutherland monologue that is so ridiculous that it was turned into an internet meme

Actually it's episode 5. I googled Sutherland's name and the infamous word he uses to dress down the elitist middle school principal and found quite a bit on it in addition to the YouTube repeat of the scene.

For anyone who wants to check it out, it doesn't spoil the mystery:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfmm1-CdgIc

As for the show, I thought it played out like an extended episode of Law and Order or one of its franchises. I can't think of anyone other than Jack Nicholson in his prime who could have pulled off what Hugh Grant does in this. Sutherland is in serious Christopher Plummer-Max von Sydow territory in this. His best role may still be ahead of him. Noah Jupe continues to be an impressive child actor. The rest of the cast, including Nicole Kidman, is a mixed bag.

The link is for Nomadland’s trailer