The Official Review Thread of 2022

[anonymous1980]

THE LOST CITY
Cast: Sandra Bullock, Channing Tatum, Daniel Radcliffe, Brad Pitt, Da'Vine Joy Randolph, Oscar Nunez, Patti Harrison, Bowen Yang.
Dirs: Adam Nee & Aaron Nee.

A romance novelist is kidnapped by a billionaire because she incorporated actual archaeological research into her books and may be able to help him find a long lost ancient treasure in a titular lost city. The annoyingly generic title aside, this is actually a pretty entertaining romantic-comedy-adventure film. Sure, it's fairly derivative of other, better films but both Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum surprisingly work very well together. They're funny and they have an appealing on-screen chemistry. Brad Pitt provides a lot of the laughs and steals the entire film with a smallish role (he really should do comedies more often.) No, it's not a future classic but it's a pleasant diverting time killer and sometimes that's all you really need.

Oscar Prospects: None.

Grade: B.

[Big Magilla]

Greg poses an interesting question about killing one's parents and thus erasing one's own ability to be born and thus not being there to have gone back to change the past in the first place, but has that ever happened in a time travel film? I see so few of them that I really don't know.

On a quick note, I actually had seen The Adam Project, probably just last week, but had already forgotten the title. Just watched The Batman, or rather The Batman was on while I dozed off and missed quite a bit of it in the midst of a major storm. Must have been the calming effects of Ave Maria being sung on the soundtrack. I will have to watch it again when I'm fully awake to truly appreciate it, but I watched enough of it to realize there are three actors in it, aside from or in addition to Robert Pattinson, who are overdue to Oscar recognition - Paul Dano, Colin Farrell, and Jeffrey Wright. None of them will get an Oscar nod for this, but all three have other films coming out this year for which they soon may.

[OscarGuy]

I've found there are many theories, but two I think best exemplify how time travel could be possible without unraveling existence.

The two theories are:

The multiverse theory: in that each change to the past creates an alternate timeline, thus no matter how much you change your own past, your timeline has already been written and is immutable.

The Doctor Who theory: in that there are fixed points in time that cannot be changed no matter what you do. Every other part of time is so unimportant that minor changes don't change enough to be noticeable by those who experience it.

And the only film that was able to explain the paradoxical nature of time travel was Star Trek: First Contact in which the Borg attempt to go back in time to prevent first contact and eradicate humans from the face of stellar history. When they pass into the wake of the Borg sphere going backwards in time, they note that the world suddenly becomes population 9 billion, all Borg. Yet, they are untouched because they are in the wake. This enables them to go back and stop the potential future form happening in the first place.

[Greg]

A young boy who recently lost his father encounters a grown-up version of himself who time traveled from the future with a mission to stop his father for helping to invent time travel.

I have a problem with how time travel movies never address the paradox of time travel. If, for example, you can travel into the past you could kill your parents before you were born, but then you would not be around to travel into the past in the first place. Movies would have people start to disappear when something like this happens, but I find that painfully convenient. Why would the person only start to disappear at that point rather than never be around in the first place? Also, if time travel is possible, then reality would always change. People would always wake up to different worlds.

[anonymous1980]

THE ADAM PROJECT
Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Walker Scobell, Mark Ruffalo, Jennifer Garner, Zoe Saldana, Catherine Keener.
Dir: Shawn Levy.

A young boy who recently lost his father encounters a grown-up version of himself who time traveled from the future with a mission to stop his father for helping to invent time travel. This film though technically original heavily borrows a lot of elements from lots of other science-fiction films and from Steven Spielberg-Amblin works in particular. But it's injected with a heavy dose of snarky humor courtesy of Ryan Reynolds. This is the main problem of the film. It tries to be this sincere science fiction tale with an emotional core but with Ryan Reynolds-Deadpool type vibe to make it appealing to the kids but director Shawn Levy couldn't really find the correct balance between the two. The film is however quite entertaining and very watchable thanks to the strong cast. Not a home run but a pleasant enough science fiction popcorn flick.

Oscar Prospects: Visual Effects is possible.

Grade: B-

[anonymous1980]

WINDFALL
Cast: Jason Segel, Lily Collins, Jesse Plemons.
Dir: Charlie McDowell.

A man breaks into the vacation home of a famous tech billionaire CEO but the billionaire comes in unexpectedly with his wife and the man gets caught in the house. File this under the "rich people suck" sub-genre. It is an interesting thriller with some interesting ideas. It's also very well performed by its three stars: Jason Segel, Lily Collins and Jesse Plemons, especially since it's only the three of them throughout most of the running time (obviously a COVID-era shoot). This is the first time I've seen Segel in a totally non-comedic role and it's nice to see that he's also great in this one. But the film kind of drops the ball with its ending. I have very mixed feelings about it. I have an idea of what it was trying to do but I'm not so sure it landed fully but it's an interesting ride nevertheless.

Oscar Prospects: Doubtful.

Grade: B-

FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Jude Law, Mads Mikkelsen, Ezra Miller, Alison Sudol, Dan Fogler, Callum Turner, William Nadylam, Jessica Williams, Victoria Yeates, Richard Coyle, Fiona Glascott, Katherine Waterston.
Dir: David Yates.

Yet another chapter in the Wizarding World in the Harry Potter universe in which Newt Scamander teams up with Albus Dumbledore to stop Gellert Grindelwald from taking over the Wizarding World and starting a war with the Muggles. Yes, yes, I know. This franchise is tired. And in a way, yes, it is tiresome. J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. have run this IP to the ground. So I came in with low expectations. But lo and behold, it's actually quite entertaining. This is due to the much-improved script (thanks to Steve Kloves) and Mads Mikkelsen, who despite being in a disposable pop franchise picture does not phone it in and actually gives a really good performance as Grindelwald (better than Johnny Depp!) Also a shout-out to Jessica Williams and Dan Fogler who are actually pretty appealing supporting characters in this. Sure, it's not great but far from terrible.

Oscar Prospects: Visual Effects, Production Design and Costume Design are remote possibilities if the field is weak.

Grade: B.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
I have to somewhat part from Sabin, in that I think there is, beyond the visuals, something interesting at the core of this movie: the way it explores the foundational myth on which the entire Batman character is built.

I planned on refuting this claim that I didn't cite anything beyond the visuals because that wasn't my recollection of my post. I just scrolled back to my original post on The Batman and found that in my list of points, I must have omitted the element that I found most interesting in the entire film. I probably did so because I didn't expect to have much of a conversation about the film on this board. Perhaps my list of thoughts on The Batman or it's possible I was just coming down from one of the oddest moviegoing experiences of my life and wasn't too hot on the film. I still would lean negative on the film.

You mentioned the idea that Wayne Sr. isn't as pure as he seemed. I found the idea of The Renewal Fund to be very compelling. The film has been out for over a month now so I can half-wade into spoiler territory. I love the idea of Wayne, Sr. setting up this fund to help the town of Gotham, and then it becomes a locus point for all the corruption within the city. I love this idea so much that I'm not even sure that Wayne Sr. needs to be un-pure. The Renewal Fund ties everything that's wrong with Gotham (corruption, The Rogues Gallery) to Bruce Wayne in a way that I've never seen before in a Batman movie more than anything I've ever seen in Batman mythology -- and it really works. I like that idea as much as anything I've ever seen in a Batman movie.

I did remark that Dano had a very interesting scene with Batman. It's a pretty interestingly executed bait and switch, and I also like the idea behind The Ridder's impoverished origin and how it re-contextualizes the myth of Bruce Wayne quite a bit. I wish that Dano's performance didn't get in the way -- which is how I feel about countless other elements getting in the way of enjoying this admittedly re-contextualization of the Batman myth overall.

[Mister Tee]

An old roommate and I had a phrase we applied to many situations: "If you were looking for a word to describe (whatever), '(X-word)' would spring to your lips." In the case of The Batman, that word is indisputably "dark". Not just dark, as in sometimes hard to see; also dark, as in, whatever your bleakest vision of urban life, we'll push it down a step. This movie isn't quite Joker-nihilist -- it stays too much in its pulp lane to reach that level of angst -- but it's a world away from the larks on which Marvel is making its fortune.

Your mileage may vary on whether this is worth it. My movie-going companion had pushed to see it, but she hated it -- took a 15-minute cigarette break mid-movie, and didn't bother to ask what happened in her absence. And I see some reviews are complaining it "isn't any fun." But that's clearly not Matt Reeves' goal here; he's squarely in Dark Knight territory, emphasizing the seriousness of the corruption and lurking evil, asking us to almost revel in it. I have to acknowledge, I responded to a lot of it. It may be simply that it works most basically as a crime/mystery story, which is my junk genre of choice. (I was reminded that, while Superman originated in Action Comics, Batman arose from Detective Comics.) The unraveling of the story, as well as the key scenes that keep the narrative moving, engaged me enough that, combined with the overall grungy atmosphere (has there ever been a more run-down Bat-cave?), it made for some kind of film experience.

I have to somewhat part from Sabin, in that I think there is, beyond the visuals, something interesting at the core of this movie: the way it explores the foundational myth on which the entire Batman character is built. The Superman story rests on, as many have said, the existence of Clark Kent: that a seemingly "mild-mannered" fellow is secretly the most powerful man on earth. (Secondarily, that he's an orphan whose family chose to save him while they were destroyed.) Batman's cornerstone is that he was a small, powerless boy, forced to deal with the fact of his parents' death at the hand of random street violence. Other films (including Joker) have played with the idea of the attack not being quite random, but this is the first, to my knowledge, to posit that Wayne Sr. might not have been wholly an innocent bystander, that he may indeed (though this is ultimately pushed aside) have been complicit in the act. And then the film goes further, in the encounter with The Riddler, by making a reasonable argument that many others have suffered similar deprivations without getting worldwide sympathy (and having massive financial wherewithal to cushion his blow). I'd be with Sabin in questioning Dano's work at the performance level -- it has a what-is-he-doing? aspect -- but I thought the big confrontation scene was elegantly done, with the writing and performing pushing us to think one thing about The Riddler's motive/knowledge (the thing that had motivated the entire Spider Man: No Way Home plot), then swerving to make it something else entirely, something with more emotional power. And something that questioned the entire aura of respect that has always hovered around the character of Bruce Wayne.

Does any of this make the movie art? Probably not. It still ends with some reassuring tropes (some people will survive to try and do good), and, in a totally unnecessary scene, baldly sets up a sequel (I absolutely hated that choice). But I'd say the movie is at least art-aspirant. Put it this way: had this been the movie pundits were pushing for a best picture nomination back in February, I likely wouldn't have endorsed the idea...but it wouldn't have struck me as so patently ridiculous as the claims made for No Way Home. This movie was at least trying to do something ambitious, and, in a world where super-hero movies eat up the multiplex regardless, that's a positive.

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
Yeah. I'm excited to see it, but the tenor of the positive response in certain segments of social media has me wary.

I would say just try to experience it as a wacky thing that you kind of can't believe got made. It's certainly an achievement.

[Okri]

Side note, I'm a little surprised at the remarkable ground-well of enthusiasm and support for Everything Everywhere All At Once on social media. It’s currently the no. 1 film of all time on Letterboxd. I certainly have encountered detractors of the film like, I suppose, myself, but I didn't anticipate that it would be the "If you don't like this film, you're not human" sensation of the early 2020's. Folks are over the moon for it. I understand why. I haven't seen the phrase "metaverse" posted on this forum (yet another reason to visit) but it contains many metaverse qualities to it in how the protagonist is "randomized" throughout the multiverse. I thought it was just going to be one of those SXSW films that opens, has a moment, and is swiftly forgotten, but I don't think that's going to be the case. I suspect it'll sit atop many top ten lists. They might not all be top ten lists that I respect, but it's going to happen.

Yeah. I'm excited to see it, but the tenor of the positive response in certain segments of social media has me wary.

[Sabin]

Side note, I'm a little surprised at the remarkable ground-well of enthusiasm and support for Everything Everywhere All At Once on social media. It’s currently the no. 1 film of all time on Letterboxd. I certainly have encountered detractors of the film like, I suppose, myself, but I didn't anticipate that it would be the "If you don't like this film, you're not human" sensation of the early 2020's. Folks are over the moon for it. I understand why. I haven't seen the phrase "metaverse" posted on this forum (yet another reason to visit) but it contains many metaverse qualities to it in how the protagonist is "randomized" throughout the multiverse. I thought it was just going to be one of those SXSW films that opens, has a moment, and is swiftly forgotten, but I don't think that's going to be the case. I suspect it'll sit atop many top ten lists. They might not all be top ten lists that I respect, but it's going to happen.

[anonymous1980]

THE BUBBLE
Cast: Karen Gillan, Iris Apatow, Fred Armisen, Maria Bakalova, Vir Das, David Duchovny, Samson Kayo, Keegan-Michael Key, Guz Khan, Leslie Mann, Kate McKinnon, Pedro Pascal, Peter Serafinowicz, Harry Trevaldwyn, Danielle Vitalis.
Dir: Judd Apatow.

A group of actors gather together in London during the pandemic in order to make a movie, a sixth film in a B-movie franchise. I have to say this is a potentially funny idea. I can see this working as sharp satire of the vacuousness of celebrity during these pandemic times. The idea is there but unfortunately, writer-director Judd Apatow does next to nothing with it. The film barely gave me any chuckles (mostly coming from Pedro Pascal who did manage to rise above the material). Considering the potentially funny premise and an obviously talented cast, this is a major disappointment. It doesn't help that this film, like other Apatow films even his good ones, is way, way too long. There is a funny way to do this. This isn't it.

Oscar Prospects: None.

Grade: D+

[Okri]

So, I check out what's playing at my local theatres on Wednesdays - invariably it's difficult to guess when non-blockbusters open and I've missed screenings of films I was excited to see before. Checking it out informed me that Focus Features was releasing a Macedonian horror film that played at Sundance. Legitimately staggered, to be honest. A24 has definitely pushed "art-horror" further into the mainstream over the past decade with It Follows, The Witch, Hereditary etc and this feels like an A24 film. But it emphatically doesn't seem like a Focus Features movie

You Won't Be Alone is worth checking out. It feels like a folk horror version of the nature shots from Tree of Life. It's nice to see these actors again (an oddly international cast - I can count the number of Macedonian films I've seen on one hand and I kept wondering why I recognized as many performers as I did). It keeps to the same tone throughout even though it moves through distinct periods? I mean, saying it has plot "momentum" makes a mockery of the word, but things happen. Interesting stuff with sound and performance. Hopefully enough people check it out, even if I couldn't call it great or recommend it whole-heartedly.

[Sabin]

The trailer for Everything Everywhere All At Once made me ecstatic. I couldnt wait to see it. The film just exhausted me. There are ideas and elements in it that I liked, for example I can now say that I saw a film where two rocks have a conversation for a few minutes. And on the surface, it seems to be concerned with what we have lost interpersonally as a society and a civilization. But The Daniels (who did the charmingly weird Swiss Army Man) aren't writers. That much is clear. The most charitable read on this narrative that I can give is that it's sort of like Inland Empire plus multiverse and kung fu. It attempts to follow a narrative train for roughly the first half and then break out into a subconscious horror show, as if to feel untethered. I say "attempts" because while I'm not a fan of Inland Empire (from my sole viewing fifteen years ago, so... who knows today), Inland Empire is tethered to a set of governing principles... I just don't understand them. I can't say that EEAAO has much on its mind. What it has on its side is its unwavering conviction in the awesomeness of Michelle Yeoh, some cool explosions of action and The Daniels imagination, and an excellent performance by Ke Huy Quan (Short Round from Temple of Doom) who is more responsible for holding this thing together with his sheer enthusiasm than anyone or thing else. I am very much looking forward to seeing more of him in the future which is the only thing I can say to that I am looking forward to seeing more of from this movie.

[anonymous1980]

APOLLO 10 1/2: A SPACE AGE CHILDHOOD
Cast: Milo Coy, Jack Black, Lee Eddy, Bill Wise, Zachary Levi, Glenn Howerton.
Dir: Richard Linklater.

This is a nostalgic trip down memory lane as a man narrates what it was like to be a 10 year old boy in Houston, Texas in 1969 during the year that man landed on the moon and even imagines himself as an astronaut. This is writer-director Richard Linklater's return to doing things he has done well in the past: The rotoscope style of animation and the childhood coming-of-age story with a wistful tinge of nostalgia. The result may not be a groundbreaking film or anything surprising from Linklater but it's a film you expect from him and it's a beautifully realized, perfectly lovely piece. The animation gives it a more magical quality, if that makes any sense. Overall, it's solid work from Richard Linklater.

Oscar Prospects: If it's eligible (I heard a lot of animators do not like rotoscoped and/or mo-capped animation), it should contend for Animated Feature.

Grade: B+