The Official Review Thread of 2022

[Greg]

I've been hearing a lot about this stop-motion animation-live-action hybrid film for a while.

Do you know if the Academy has a minimum percentage of the movie that needs to be animated for it to be eligible to be nominated for Animated Feature or Animated Short Subject?

[anonymous1980]

TO LESLIE
Cast: Andrea Riseborough, Marc Maron, Andre Royo, Allison Janney, Owen Teague, Stephen Root, James Landry Hebert.
Dir: Michael Morris.

Years after squandering her lottery winnings on drugs and alcohol, a woman tries to get her life together and reconnect with her estranged son and does not always succeed. So this film came to my attention like most people because of its unusual Oscar campaign for its lead actress Andrea Riseborough which involved actually e-mailing and calling Academy members to see the film and host screenings...and it worked! She got a Best Actress Oscar nomination. But what about the film and performance? I can definitely why actors loved this film. Riseborough is ACTING! (all-caps-with-an-exclamation point acting). The story is a fairly standard addiction drama that's made watchable by the very good performances. Yes, Riseborough is very good but it would've been a miserable experience if she didn't have the fine supporting work of Marc Maron and Andre Royo who ground the film and provide some humor and levity to it. It's far from a masterpiece but not a bad film.

Grade: B.

[anonymous1980]

MARCEL THE SHELL WITH SHOES ON
Cast: Jenny Slate, Isabella Rossellini (voices), Dean Fleischer Camp, Rosa Salazar, Thomas Mann, Lesley Stahl.
Dir: Dean Fleischer Camp.

Marcel is a young shell with shoes on who's being interviewed by a filmmaker who has moved into the house where he was living and in the process, he is looking for his lost family. I've been hearing a lot about this stop-motion animation-live-action hybrid film for a while. Now that I've seen it, I have to say, that while I liked it very much, I'm not as head over heels enamored of it like its fans. Yes, the character is adorable. It is quite funny. It is also quite sweet and genuinely moving. It handles sincere goodness without being cloying or sappy which is not an easy thing to do. Jenny Slate and Isabella Rossellini both give wonderful voice performances. Yes, it is a very good film that I highly recommend but it is not my favorite animated film of the year which is the worst thing I can say about it.

Grade: B+

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
Sabin, it's supposed to be based on a true story.

So is [fill in the blank].

I'm saying that I didn't buy elements of the story they were telling me as they were telling me it.

[Big Magilla]

Sabin, it's supposed to be based on a true story.

[Sabin]

I'm going to save up a few of my viewings for a longer dispatch but it seems like we're all starting to watch To Leslie at the same time that we learn about its existence.

There’s a lot that I liked about To Leslie, but I don’t buy it as the portrait of redemption it eventually cozies into. I’ve seen a few comparisons to a drunk Nomadland but it reminded me of Manchester by the Sea, as a portrait of a wound that won’t heal. I started the film fearing the worst as Riseborough screams for one more night at a motel and then falls into her estranged son’s life. I prepared for a story of mother-son reconciliation as the mother hides her drinking from him. Except, that’s not what the film becomes. She blows that bridge up almost instantly. It’s a terrific choice, and for a good stretch of time To Leslie really captures the precariousness of this kind of existence. Riseborough’s performance becomes much more layered after that sequence. For a good stretch, Leslie is just sort of bouncing around as we learn more about her life and what makes her tick. All of which makes the revelation of her secret of what she did to her son after she won the lottery a total non-event and her subsequent redemption much less convincing. To be honest, I’m not even sure the film needed the “she won the lottery” setup. It doesn’t really do anything of substance with it. And although it doesn't quite go in the more honest direction that I think it should have (maybe the one that would've found less of an audience) I liked how the film suggests that Riseborough's character just lures people into her spiral -- like Marc Maron's kindly motel owner -- only to break their hearts. That's kind of key to her disfunction/disease, one which clearly began long before she won the lottery; there's a difference between the story of someone who won the lottery and it destroyed their life vs. the story of someone whose life is so destroyed that winning the lottery doesn't mater, and I don't think To Leslie grapples with that enough.

That being said, there’s more than enough to like about the film to recommend it in addition to Riseborough’s performance which is deserving of the attention it is getting.

[Big Magilla]

I avoided Blonde the 2000 book, Blonde the 2001 TV miniseries, and Blonde the Netflix movie so far and just wish they would leave poor Marilyn alone. She had a sad life growing up, as a struggling actress, and as a major star. Reading or watching something that adds more misery to a fictitious account of that life is not something I want to indulge in, so Oscar completion be damned. I read the synopsis on IMDb. I know what happens. I'm not going to watch it.

I don't get why it is being mentioned that this is a "fictitious" account of her life. What part is fiction? Having read a number of books about her sad life I couldn't tell what part was not the truth. Yes many moments have been embelished for dramatic effect but those incidents fall in line with what really happened. The scene with Kennedy is particularly vile but one can very well imagine that to have taken place as well. Kennedy was a true male product of the 1950s-1960s. The tv show Mad Men truly depicts how most men behaved during that era. Like so many women poor Marilyn too found herself trapped with men who used and abused her.

"Imagine" is the key word here.

This thing would be better titled My Life of Dicks to paraphrase this year's Oscar nominated short subject, My Year of Dicks, which about exactly what you think it is about.

Both film versions based on the book apparently leave out the vilest supposition that Joyce Carol Oates hurls at her readers, that RFK hired an assassin to kill her. Let's remember that Oates wrote this post-Clinton and Lewinsky so presidential blowjobs and rapes were a hot topic then. I doubt that Marilyn's encounters with JFK were that brutal. Ditto her other relationships. Just let the poor woman rest in peace.

[Reza]

I avoided Blonde the 2000 book, Blonde the 2001 TV miniseries, and Blonde the Netflix movie so far and just wish they would leave poor Marilyn alone. She had a sad life growing up, as a struggling actress, and as a major star. Reading or watching something that adds more misery to a fictitious account of that life is not something I want to indulge in, so Oscar completion be damned. I read the synopsis on IMDb. I know what happens. I'm not going to watch it.

I don't get why it is being mentioned that this is a "fictitious" account of her life. What part is fiction? Having read a number of books about her sad life I couldn't tell what part was not the truth. Yes many moments have been embelished for dramatic effect but those incidents fall in line with what really happened. The scene with Kennedy is particularly vile but one can very well imagine that to have taken place as well. Kennedy was a true male product of the 1950s-1960s. The tv show Mad Men truly depicts how most men behaved during that era. Like so many women poor Marilyn too found herself trapped with men who used and abused her.

[Big Magilla]

I saw To Leslie last night, Causeway this morning, and I still have no desire to see Blonde.

Andrea Riseborough gives a strong performance in To Leslie but I still don't get the bizarre plot by several A and B list actresses to secure her a nomination by twisting their friends' arms to place her at no. 1 in their submissions which intentionally or not robbed Danielle Deadwyler of a much-deserved Oscar nomination.

The film itself is a by-the-numbers tale of a nasty drunk who finds redemption when she finally sobers up. Marc Maron as a kindly motel manager and Owen Teague as her fed-up son stand out in the supporting cast.

The big surprise for me in Causeway is Jennifer Lawrence who gives her best performance since Winter's Bone. The film itself is slight, but her performance as a traumatized veteran of the war in Afghanistan is first-rate throughout. Brian Tyree Henry is extremely low key as her new-found friend, a garage owner who is himself recovering from a traumatic experience. I don't quite get his Oscar nod over Paul Dano and Ben Whishaw but it's a legitimate supporting performance unlike Eddie Redmayne's in The Good Nurse who was nominated in the fifth slot elsewhere. Also quite good are Jane Houdyshell in a brief bit as Lawrence's caregiver in the early scenes and hearing-impaired Will Pullen as Lawrence's brother in a heartbreaking 11th hour scene.

I avoided Blonde the 2000 book, Blonde the 2001 TV miniseries, and Blonde the Netflix movie so far and just wish they would leave poor Marilyn alone. She had a sad life growing up, as a struggling actress, and as a major star. Reading or watching something that adds more misery to a fictitious account of that life is not something I want to indulge in, so Oscar completion be damned. I read the synopsis on IMDb. I know what happens. I'm not going to watch it.

[Sabin]

Some quick shots:

Catherine Called Birdy: charming! A Medieval Lady Bird. Seriously though, the specter of Lady Bird hangs over this film so much (despite being from a 90’s book series) that I can’t believe it wasn’t a main influence on Lena Dunham. I was thoroughly won over by Bella Ramsey and her truly odd line readings (spoken and in v.o.) as well as its depiction of a sweet medieval family unit, which I'm not sure I've quite seen before. The exasperated father (Andrew Scott) is just a good guy who is trying to do what he thinks is right for his family. It suffers only from come and go tensions in the middle section, but good job by all. I'd recommend this to any teenager.

Pearl: First an explanation. This film is a prequel to X (an ersatz grind-house-era thriller about a porn set in the country that gets terrorized by its elderly neighbors), which memorably featured the final girl and the killer memorably played by the same actor (Mia Goth, unrecognizably made-up as the latter). So director Ti West and star Mia Goth decided to make a prequel about how the killer ended up where she did, which isn’t the craziest idea in the world; the novelty of both roles being Mia Goth is what made the first film special, so why not see where exploring it can get you? The problem is it doesn’t really do anything that suspenseful or transgressive with its 1950s Technicolor pastiche. It just feels like fan downloadable content. It’s basically just a character study with a surprising amount of empathy towards Pearl (Mia Goth, who is quite good). I mostly enjoyed it for its can-do filmmaking spirit but it didn’t do much for me.

Thirteen Lives: the most notable thing about this film is that Ron Howard couldn’t command a theatrical run for this film. I don’t blame Amazon as it’s hard to see a world where this film would’ve been a success, but sign o’ the times. Anyway, it’s easy to see why Ron Howard would be a good match for this material as he struck gold as much as he could’ve with Apollo 13, another disaster-adjacent film where the audience knows the outcome but I don’t think lightning strikes twice. It lacks the same tension of the known outcome. Apollo 13 might be generally themeless but it has a simple but cohesive patriotic spirit that’s totally lacking here. All attempts to flesh out these characters fall flat. I also just wonder if diving isn’t that thrilling of a spectacle. I blame the script by William Nicholson more than anything else, but it ends up feeling like a commendable but unsuccessful effort to dramatize "a thing that happened," but unlike Apollo 13 never really feels like much more.

[anonymous1980]

THE FABELMANS
Cast: Gabriel LaBelle, Michelle Williams, Paul Dano, Seth Rogen, Jeannie Berlin, David Lynch, Judd Hirsch, Robin Bartlett, Julia Butters, Chloe East, Keeley Karsten, Sam Rechner, Oakes Fegley.
Dir: Steven Spielberg.

This is director Steven Spielberg's entry to the "autofiction" genre as he tells the story of a young aspiring filmmaker having to deal with his parents' troubled marriage as the usual adolescent issues like girls and bullies. I'm not sure if this is one of Spielberg's best works. I'm not even sure if this is one of Spielberg's best works of the 21st century but there are lots of beautiful and powerful moments that I would rank among the most unforgettable scenes Spielberg has done. The performances of the cast are uniformly excellent, even those in small supporting parts. This film is certainly his most personal since E.T. and you can feel it in every frame. Where would I rank this among Spielberg's filmography? He's done so many, it's tough. I would say maybe lower-upper-tier? Maybe? I might think about this in a few years. But it is an excellent film nevertheless.

Oscar Prospects: Across the board.

Grade: A-

[anonymous1980]

PEARL
Cast: Mia Goth, David Corenswet, Tandi Wright, Matthew Sunderland, Emma Jenkins-Purro.
Dir: Ti West.

This is the prequel to the earlier horror film X which explores the back story of its primary antagonist, Pearl, in her younger years and how she came to be. I usually like Ti West. I liked his previous couple of films a lot. Though I did like X, I was not as an enthusiastic fan of it like some of my other peers in the film geek community. So I was not dying to see this (interested but not dripping with excitement). Now, I've gotten around to seeing it. I have to say: I'm now a fan. I've heard this described as "if Douglas Sirk directed a slasher film" and it is quite accurate. It is a highly stylized and intentionally campy with a stellar performance by Mia Goth, who manages to be over the top yet still believable, no small feat. So, yes, this is one of the best horror films of 2022.

Oscar Prospects: You know, Mia Goth would be a worthy addition to the Best Actress lineup. No joke.

Grade: B+

[anonymous1980]

I WANNA DANCE WITH SOMEBODY
Cast: Naomi Ackie, Stanley Tucci, Ashton Sanders, Nafessa Williams, Tamara Tunie, Clarke Peters.
Dir: Kasi Lemmons.

This is authorized biopic of singer Whitney Houston (co-produced by Clive Davis and the late singer’s sister-in-law) which is of course pretty much a highlight reel of her various triumphs and tragedies. It pretty much follows what you would expect a Whitney Houston biopic would. Screenwriter Anthony McCarten tries to break it up by pretty much jumping from year to year to the detriment of the film since it makes it more obvious. The performances are nice though. They’re usually the saving grace of this tiresome subgenre. It at least makes it not painful. Oh and the soundtrack which made want to listen to some Whitney tunes. Not great but watchable.

Oscar Prospects: Naomi Ackie could sneak in that last spot in Actress but it’s unlikely.

Grade: C+

[Mister Tee]

The Good Nurse gets by on The Changeling Rule for me in that if the story is interesting enough I'm probably going to roll with it enough to not dislike it despite whatever else is working or not working in it. The biggest problem with the film is that the film tips its hat far too early that Eddie Redmayne might be the murderer and for far too long a stretch we're just waiting for that development to pan out. He's either a murderer or it's a fake-out. And it takes forever for anyone to start to suspect him.

The rejoinder to that would be that this is not a mystery thriller, but a true crime thriller, where some of the audience will come in knowing who the villain is, and many of the rest will be tipped off by the "why else would Eddie Redmaybe be playing him?" casting. The drama consists of how long it takes to unmask/stop him, not whether he's guilty.

Finally, I'll cosign all that Mister Tee wrote about RRR.

And I'll reciprocate by cosigning all you wrote about All Quiet on the Western Front.

There are things in this film that are instantly familiar -- the fervor of the teacher that inspires all the enlisting; the time in the foxhole with the dead man -- but there's enough that's different from both Milestone's version or Remarque's original novel that this amounts to quite a bit more than a remake with more advanced technology (though that's there, too). It's a long while since I saw the 1930 version -- even longer since I read the book, as a high school freshman -- but I believe the decision to push most of the action to the very last days of the war is a pretty radical revision. It puts an even greater cloud of futility over the main characters' fates -- evoking John Kerry's famous "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" I'd argue the film goes a bit too far with this idea -- Paul's last-second fate feels a bit too close to how a contemporary action film would play out -- but it raises the stakes of much of the late drama.

At the same time, the insertion of the off-battlefield scenes -- both Daniel Bruhl's negotations with the French, and the German high command's fury at the "betrayal" -- gives the film context that Remarque couldn't have provided...or, at least, couldn't have seen to its conclusion. History tells us the combination of French intransigence, the insistence on utterly humiliating treaty terms, and the German officers' dogged insistence they could prevail if they just continued the fight, together created the "stab in the back" argument that was key to the rise of Hitler and all the horror that created. Seeing that play out as counterpoint only underlines Remarque's disillusionment -- it may not have been something he wrote, but it feels like something he'd have endorsed.

The film's success on lists on late -- the Academy shortlist, the BAFTA longlist -- suggests this film might be a surprise Oscar player. It's not like I think it's wildly deserving -- it's still a remake of old, tested material, nothing that new or fresh. But it is a well-made, engrossing, moving human drama in a grand context, and, given that Hollywood appears to have abandoned the pursuit of such, the support for it may be a case of awards-giving bodies announcing that's still what they prefer. Rather than surrendering to the special effects blog -- or voting for a myriad of sequels for best picture -- voters may be reaching back nearly a century to make the statement that drama is worth saving. I can't say I disagree with the sentiment.

[Sabin]

A few more in passing...

I could see the Academy liking the new All Quiet on the Western Front. It's not a visionary work but it's an effective adaptation of an old classic in that it offers fresh value. It brings the viewer closer to trench warfare on a modern budget than 1917 (and any film than I can remember). To my memory, it's more political than the source material and 30's film, acting as a cautionary tale against the rise of nationalism and serving as a clear through-line to World War II. I'll let others argue whether that's a betrayal of Remarque's intentions and I think the way it executes these ideas are a bit awkward (especially in how it lives out through Paul), but I thought it was interesting. And finally, it was just nice to settle into a big budget book adaptation. A few minutes in when Paul was introduced, I said out loud "Oh, Paul Baumer!" like I was remembering an old friend. A little pleasure but a real one. I have a few reservations about this film that keep it a bit at bay for me. Besides some wonky tech elements (score, editing), it never emphasizes enough until the credits the absurdity of how futile their efforts were in moving the line, which never moved throughout the war. Also, it doesn't capture the nightmarish elements of this war, that so many soldiers were seeing and experiencing things they had never fathomed before. It gets close with the arrival of the tanks. But on the whole, I found it respectable. Also, I can't think of any reason really why Academy voters won't go for this. Also, the guy who plays Paul should be considered a dark horse. He's quite good.

I forgot to write about EO when I saw it. I saw it on New Years Eve, got terribly depressed at the ending, and said "Fuck it, I'm going to see Avatar." I do like it. I was grateful with getting out of the human world and pondering the existence of the animals for a while. I'm glad its winning all of its awards for cinematography. The way it pops in and out of EO's POV is incredible. And I liked how EO just sort of popped here and there throughout his relative world. At a certain point, we don't need to see how he got anywhere. My big reservation is that I think it's a bit grander of a film than it started off on the page as a statement on animal cruelty. At shy of 90 minutes, it's a series of vignettes that are desperate to avoid direct evocation of Bresson in courting any significant spiritual story-line or a lasting human connection. But without them, it feels a bit too sketchy. The ending is depressing, not heartbreaking. I think it needed more.

The Good Nurse gets by on The Changeling Rule for me in that if the story is interesting enough I'm probably going to roll with it enough to not dislike it despite whatever else is working or not working in it. The biggest problem with the film is that the film tips its hat far too early that Eddie Redmayne might be the murderer and for far too long a stretch we're just waiting for that development to pan out. He's either a murderer or it's a fake-out. And it takes forever for anyone to start to suspect him. Beyond that, it's a reasonably effective David Fincher-y triumph of mood and atmosphere all in the service of Swedenfy New Jersey. It's better than your average Netflix Original. I'm going to retract my earlier statements and say that Eddie Redmayne could sneak in partially because I think Jessica Chastain has a fighting chance. She wouldn't be on my list but she just won last year and I thought she did a pretty good job in this film. I'm hit or miss on her. For such a vibrant presence, I'll never understand why she so often plays emotionally drained women, but I thought she was better here than when she usually does it.

Guillermo Del Toro's Pinocchio is a Guillermo Del Toro movie in that it's full of more promising ideas than Del Toro can satisfyingly develop or bring together in the end, so there's really nothing in the end to admire but him. I've felt that about every one of his films post-Pan's Labyrinth and now I want to see that one again. I loved it at the time. I wonder if it's guilty of the same sins. Anyway, there's a lot to admire about this film and I'd certainly recommend it to anyone for its dazzling animation and outstanding take on the main character. The scene where Gepetto first discovers him is hilariously terrifying, a great warning against parenthood, and one of my favorite scenes of the year. The first act is pretty great. But after that, I'm sorry, he just didn't need a traveling theater, a fascist youth camp, and literal purgatory at the expense of having Jimin-er, Sebastian by his side. Which, y'know, is easily the most important part of any Pinocchio story. It's not bad it's just disappointing in the way that most Guillermo Del Toro movies are disappointing to me these days.

Finally, I'll cosign all that Mister Tee wrote about RRR. I am not familiar with Tollywood. I am familiar with the experience of having a blast. This was my Everything Everywhere All At Once.