The Official Review Thread of 2021

[Sabin]

Well, now I feel dumb.

flipp525 wrote
The book has much the same take on that scene. It’s never explained exactly how Clare [fill in the blank here to avoid spoilers]. Any one of three scenarios seem possible there. So, in that regard, the direction follows the novella’s approach to the climax.

The film does retain the last line of the book which was inexplicably excised after Larsen’s first edition and then restored in later editions.

Mister Tee wrote
If you fully understand the climactic scene, I think you're ahead of where Hall wants you to be. From all I can glean, she wanted it to be totally unclear whether Clare 1) fell 2) was pushed by Skarsgard or 3) was pushed by Thompson.

This, to me, encapsulates my problem with the film. Far more than that scene seems aimed at ambiguity, but for me just produces vagueness, which blocks me out. As you say, there are all those scenes where we see Thomson watching or pondering, but, without narration, we don't know what she's thinking. Is it, I wish Clare had never turned up again, because I envy her ability to pass? -- or because she's stealing my husband? -- or because I'm attracted to her in ways that scare me? You could infer any of these, as you can from any blank slate. But opaqueness doesn't equate to complexity; it can just mean you're not communicating.

Thank you both for this additional context.

I think Passing is a very good example of how books are not films. It's also a good example of how just because it's not a film doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. I'm glad Passing exists. I just don't think I really like it.

But I will say this: I watched Passing early in the morning. By the time daylight crept in, I was straining to make out certain details on my screen. Passing might be the worst film to see in an increasingly sunny room. Perhaps had I seen it in a theater, I might find the ending haunting instead of frustrating.

[Mister Tee]

It's worth saying that the "climactic" scene with Clare is very poorly directed. I had to rewind twice to fully understand what I had just seen.

SPOILERS

If you fully understand the climactic scene, I think you're ahead of where Hall wants you to be. From all I can glean, she wanted it to be totally unclear whether Clare 1) fell 2) was pushed by Skarsgard or 3) was pushed by Thompson.

This, to me, encapsulates my problem with the film. Far more than that scene seems aimed at ambiguity, but for me just produces vagueness, which blocks me out. As you say, there are all those scenes where we see Thompson watching or pondering, but, without narration, we don't know what she's thinking. Is it, I wish Clare had never turned up again, because I envy her ability to pass? -- or because she's stealing my husband? -- or because I'm attracted to her in ways that scare me? You could infer any of these, as you can from any blank slate. But opaqueness doesn't equate to complexity; it can just mean you're not communicating.

[flipp525]

It's worth saying that the "climactic" scene with Clare is very poorly directed. I had to rewind twice to fully understand what I had just seen.

The book has much the same take on that scene. It’s never explained exactly how Clare [fill in the blank here to avoid spoilers]. Any one of three scenarios seem possible there. So, in that regard, the direction follows the novella’s approach to the climax.

The film does retain the last line of the book which was inexplicably excised after Larsen’s first edition and then restored in later editions.

[Sabin]

I don't have a lot to say about Passing. For the first ten minutes, I assumed that this film was headed towards the revelation that Tessa Thompson and Ruth Negga had been lovers in the past or at the very least that Irene is in love with her. The groundwork is laid out so clearly from the longing shared looks to the sexless marriage between Tessa Thompson and Andre Holland. At least, it might have tied their stories together a bit more but to a larger point, I think this is a good example of the difference between what a book does well and what a film does well. The Netflix logline describes the story as "In 1920s New York City, a Black woman finds her world upended when her life becomes intertwined with a former childhood friend who's passing as white." I never felt as though her life was truly upended from the outside. Maybe on the inside. Books are just better at conveying that. Maybe voice-over wouldn't be inappropriate for a story like this because as it is it feels a bit too contained.

Anyway, Passing is a story of myriad struggles, outward and inward. I think what Rebecca Hall is doing works of its own accord. I was also quite aware of the budgetary restricts. The 4:3 framing certainly helped. My biggest issue with the film (as has been mentioned) is I I couldn't really get a handle on Reenie (Tessa Thompson). She's introduced as something of a naif but quickly is revealed to be a realistic. At times it felt as though the film defines her by what Clare (Ruth Negga) isn't. Melodramatic vs. Under-dramatic.

I'm still mulling over what I've just seen. I know I appreciate the window into the different time and place. It has a lot of merit and I responded moment to moment to the sensory experiences of the different spaces. It's a very beautiful piece of work and I was moved by it but I know I wasn't completely satisfied with it.

It's worth saying that the "climactic" scene with Clare is very poorly directed. I had to rewind twice to fully understand what I had just seen.

[anonymous1980]

SPENCER
Cast: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Sean Harris, Jack Farthing, Jack Nielen, Freddie Spry.
Dir: Pablo Larrain.

This film is a fictionalized and speculated account of the last Christmas Princess Diana spent with the Royal Family before she decided to divorce Prince Charles. Steven Knight's script often veers into pretentious camp territory with the soup eating, pearl clutching and the Anne Boleyn thing, all of which I'm a iffy with. However, the beautiful, transcendent performance of Kristen Stewart as Princess Diana makes most everything work. I sometimes forget I'm even watching Stewart. She is ably supported by a strong supporting cast who manages to make an impression despite it being her show. Let's not forget Claire Mathon's exquisite cinematography, Jonny Greenwood's music and Jacqueline Durran's costumes. They all make this film overall very good. I can't wait to see which famous woman Pablo Larrain will do an artful biopic next.

Oscar Prospects: Stewart's a shoo-in for the nomination...even the win. Deserves mentions for Score, Cinematography and Costumes.

Grade: B+

[Big Magilla]

The best thing to be said about Respect is that Jennifer Hudson isn't the complete acting-naif she appeared in Dreamgirls. I'm not saying she's anything special, but she's lost that barely-an-actress feel that she had back then. And she sings extremely well, even when you're comparing her to the Queen of Us All.

But it's all in the service of very little. The movie goes on for an unconscionable nearly-2 1/2-hours, and is almost entirely a compendium of singer-bio cliches. The build-up to Aretha's cross-over from pop standards to her singular soul style -- especially the scenes in the Muscle Shoals Studio -- is engaging enough, but once the title song is put together and sung (roughly at the one-hour mark), all the fun of the movie is over. From there, we get the physical abuse from What's Love Got to Do With It? matched to the lady-drinks-the-booze elements of most any Susan Hayward picture. If you're dying to see yet another performer-freaks-out-on-stage scene, you're in luck. Even better: you get an "I prove I'm cleaning up my life by throwing out empty liquor bottles" scene (something that was old-hat in Nickelodeon days). The movie climaxes with the Amazing Grace church performance, which 1) doesn't really feel like much of an ending to Aretha's story and 2) is better watched by renting the performance documentary.

The abundance of best actress candidates seems to have quieted any talk of a Hudson nomination, but you never can tell, bio-pics being acting branch catnip over the past two decades. Hopefully, cooler heads prevail.

Agreed, but the film is handicapped from the start in its determination to tell a PG story. It never explains the kids Aretha had at 12 and 15 or why she abandoned them for long periods of time. The first one is hinted at as a rape from someone from her father's church but it is never fully explained. It goes on and on but ends in 1972 leaving out some very interesting stuff that could have been included in the 2 1/2 hour running time if they eliminated a lot of the repetition after the one-hour mark.

[Mister Tee]

The best thing to be said about Respect is that Jennifer Hudson isn't the complete acting-naif she appeared in Dreamgirls. I'm not saying she's anything special, but she's lost that barely-an-actress feel that she had back then. And she sings extremely well, even when you're comparing her to the Queen of Us All.

But it's all in the service of very little. The movie goes on for an unconscionable nearly-2 1/2-hours, and is almost entirely a compendium of singer-bio cliches. The build-up to Aretha's cross-over from pop standards to her singular soul style -- especially the scenes in the Muscle Shoals Studio -- is engaging enough, but once the title song is put together and sung (roughly at the one-hour mark), all the fun of the movie is over. From there, we get the physical abuse from What's Love Got to Do With It? matched to the lady-drinks-the-booze elements of most any Susan Hayward picture. If you're dying to see yet another performer-freaks-out-on-stage scene, you're in luck. Even better: you get an "I prove I'm cleaning up my life by throwing out empty liquor bottles" scene (something that was old-hat in Nickelodeon days). The movie climaxes with the Amazing Grace church performance, which 1) doesn't really feel like much of an ending to Aretha's story and 2) is better watched by renting the performance documentary.

The abundance of best actress candidates seems to have quieted any talk of a Hudson nomination, but you never can tell, bio-pics being acting branch catnip over the past two decades. Hopefully, cooler heads prevail.

[anonymous1980]

PASSING
Cast: Tessa Thompson, Ruth Negga, Andre Holland, Bill Camp, Alexander Skarsgard, Gbenga Akinnagbe, Antoinette Crowe-Legacy.
Dir: Rebecca Hall.

It's 1920's New York. A mixed-race African American woman who "passes" for white meets up with a childhood friend who is also similarly "passing" for white and we see how their lives differ. There's a lot to admire about this film. The performances of the cast is top-notch especially Ruth Negga. The black & white cinematography is beautiful and of course adds a thematic layer to the proceedings. Of course, exploring themes of racism and racial identity is always a good thing. But even though the film is under 100 minutes, it feels long and padded out. Personally, I found myself being invested more in Ruth Negga's character than Tessa Thompson's character but we spend most of our time with the latter. But, their performances hold everything together. Overall, it's an imperfect but still very good film and a strong debut from Rebecca Hall.

Oscar Prospects: Ruth Negga deserves her Best Supporting Actress buzz.

Grade: B+

[anonymous1980]

DUNE (PART ONE)
Cast: Timothee Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Jason Momoa, Javier Bardem, Stellan Skarsgaard, Zendaya, Dave Bautista, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Sharon Duncan Brewster, Chang Cheh, Charlotte Rampling, David Dasmaltchian.
Dir: Denis Villenueve

This is the first half of a two-part adaptation of Frank Herbert's highly influential science-fiction novel about the struggle of control of the planet Arrakis which produces the most precious element of the universe: spice and the coming of age of a chosen one in the form of Paul Atreides. I must preface this by saying this is the very first film I saw in the big screen after over TWENTY MONTHS. What a way to welcome me back to the theaters! It is beautiful, spectacular film in every way. The world looks concrete and lived-in. The visuals are awe-inspiring. I've read the book (and saw the Lynch version) and yes, it is quite faithful to the story and it managed to make it digestible for people who go in cold. My only quibble really is the fact that this really feels like half a film. But at the same time, I'm glad they made this decision (and I'm glad that the sequel will happen). The cast is also uniformly great. The sound and Hans Zimmer's score is worth the big screen alone. Yes, this is one of the best films of the year.

Oscar Prospects: Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Production Design, Film Editing, Costume Design, Sound, Score, Visual Effects and Makeup & Hairstyling. It could win 3 or 4 of those.

Grade: A-

[Big Magilla]

This faithful adaptation of Nella Larsen's 1929 novel is both good in some ways while being problematic in others.

Written between Edna Ferber's 1926 novel, Show Boat, and Fannie Hurst's 1933 novel, Imitation of Life, the most interesting and ultimately tragic character in all three was the mixed race, but predominantly black, woman with European features, who was raised black but passed for white as a young adult.

The film was made in black-and-white in the 1.33:1 ratio of films made at the time of the novel's publication. Tessa Thompson, who plays the proud black woman bears a strong physical resemblance to Fredi Washington, the light-skinned black actress who played the girl who passed for white in the 1934 version of Imitation of Life, but unlike Washington, her features are used to emphasize her blackness in the film's early scenes where she is supposed to be concealing her features under a wide-brimmed hat. Ruth Negga, as her childhood friend who has successfully passed as white for years, is practically embalmed in heavy pancake or flour makeup in the same scenes. I don't know, but I would assume that this was done to suggest that you can't really disguise who you really are. It comes across as heavy-handed. Both actresses have a natural beauty that comes through in later scenes.

Much has been made of the fact that first time director Rebecca Hall and stars Thompson and Negga are biracial and are therefore more appropriate to telling the story than was the casting of Susan Kohner in the 1959 version of Imitation of Life and Alma Rubens, Helen Morgan, and Ava Gardner in the three film versions of Show Boat. Maybe, but Hall and Thompson were born into prominent show business families and not subject to the kind of racial discrimination that the film's characters faced. Negga, who was born in Ethiopia to an Ethiopian father and Irish mother, was raised in Ireland from the age of four. If she resembles anyone from the era in which the film takes place, it's Irish-American tragedian-comedienne extraordinaire Glenda Farrell.

The film's best scenes are those between Thompson and André Holland as her husband, and of course, those between Thompson and the flawless Negga. On the other hand, Thompson has too many scenes in which she just mopes around in a depressed state as if she's trying to imitate Julianne Moore in The Hours.

The cinematography by Eduard Grau (A Single Man, Suffragette) is extraordinary. That final shot with snow falling on the living and the dead evokes the ending of John Huston's film of James Joyce's The Dead.

[Mister Tee]

I'm curious what people will think of Passing. I liked it without thinking it was particularly great. Thompson and Negga do good work. The latter in particular manages to convey just how heartfelt she is while embracing artifice. The subject matter has tonnes of complexity that the film can't quite handle, but it's still nicely adult filmmaking.

Not gonna lie, though, I assumed that they shot it in black and white because our eyes wouldn't let us see these two ladies as white, though.

Had that same thought, about the black-and-white; it lightened the faces in a way that I don't think would have worked in color (even in this format, it struck me Tessa Thompson's features weren't fully believable as someone who could pass). It's a difficult casting situation: I assume Hall needed some sort of names to get the project financed, and she got two of the best -- but how many prominent black actresses could, in purely visual terns, pull such an assignment off? This is still a better way to go than having some white actress (or Anthony Hopkins) pretend to be black. But it's a problem.

I liked the movie at the start -- I thought the opening scenes between the two women worked really well. As the story progressed, though, I felt it wasn't sure what direction it wanted to go: at some moments, it felt like strictly an "issue" movie (tracking the repercussions of Clare's passing), and, at others, it felt it was drifting into domestic/jealousy drama. A blend of the two was certainly a possibility, but I didn't feel like Hall achieved that -- and the ending, for me, didn't satisfactorily wrap either thing up...it felt more like the film ran out of time than that it reached a fitting climax.

I've liked Thompson in other films, but her character (as constructed by Hall) struck me as too often opaque here -- I couldn't keep track of her moods or, ultimately, her actions, which diminished my involvement. Negga was luckier: Clare's situation is inherently dramatic, full of ongoing conflict, and she made the most of every moment. I wasn't that much a fan of Negga's Oscar-nominated performance, but here I think she makes the most powerful impression of anyone on screen. As for the men: Andre Holland is talented, but I couldn't get a good grip on his character...and, at this point, isn't casting Skarsgard pretty much stacking the deck toward villainy?

I don't often notice such things, but I was acutely aware that this film must have been shot on a tight budget -- many scenes felt under-populated, and shot close-in to mask what might not have been period-appropriate details. I understand the limitations under which a film on this subject would need to labor. But, part of their job is to prevent my dwelling on such things, and I have to acknowledge they didn't succeed here. (Though I thought the film looked good, overall.)

[flipp525]

I'm curious what people will think of Passing. I liked it without thinking it was particularly great. Thompson and Negga do good work. The latter in particular manages to convey just how heartfelt she is while embracing artifice. The subject matter has tonnes of complexity that the film can't quite handle, but it's still nicely adult filmmaking.

Just saw Passing on Netflix. I had heard amazing things about Ruth Negga’s performance and she really is as fantastic as advertised. But I was really blown away by Tessa Thompson’s far less showy but brilliantly nuanced lead performance in the film. She is exceptional.

The cinematography is top-tier making the film utterly gorgeous to look at. Having re-read Nella Larsen’s source material this week before I saw the movie, so much of the dialogue is taken verbatim from the source material and really encapsulates the world of the story.

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
Are you a fan of his Dawn of the Dead?

To be honest, I haven’t seen it. I know that’s everyone’s go to answer for his one good film. I’m sure it’s fine. I just haven’t brought myself to check it out.

[Okri]

I'm curious what people will think of Passing. I liked it without thinking it was particularly great. Thompson and Negga do good work. The latter in particular manages to convey just how heartfelt she is while embracing artifice. The subject matter has tonnes of complexity that the film can't quite handle, but it's still nicely adult filmmaking.

Not gonna lie, though, I assumed that they shot it in black and white because our eyes wouldn't let us see these two ladies as white, though.

I'll damn it with faint praise: it's Zach Snyder's best film, but I didn't need four hours of it.

Are you a fan of his Dawn of the Dead?

[Big Magilla]

Congrats on the new TV.