If you're anything like me , you're a sucker for a good revenge movie. 2 years ago I fell in love with a Finnish film where the star never speaks in the movie, does outrageous things that are not physically possible, and kills Nazis for 90 minutes. In other words it was a movie that was designed for people like me, and I hope for people like you.
When I heard that there was going to be a Sisu 2, I was immediately excited. More ridiculous violence and a stoic hero that we can admire for his fortitude, creativity, and relentlessness. This time he gets to kill Commies for the most part, although there is one Nazi who is directing things. Does that make any sense? Of course not. These movies are not meant to make sense, they are meant to entertain, and the road to Revenge is quite entertaining, although it can never achieve the delightful surprise that its predecessor was.
The setup for the film is simple: Our hero , Having been displaced by Soviet takeover of Finnish territory, returns to the home where his wife and child were murdered. His goal, To tear it down and transport it to the new territory in Finland where he is now exiled to. The Soviet High command has determined that a Finnish Commando who has become a legendary hero is a threat to their status, so they release the Nazi commandant responsible for his family's death, to deal with him in a manner that reflects their barbaric nature .
The Nazi war criminal , freed by the communists to do their dirty work is played by actor. Stephen Lang. This is familiar territory for Lang, As he has played villains in countless films, including the Avatar movies and Tombstone. Our returning hero is played by the same actor from the first film whose stoic countenance continues to be admirable, and ambiguous. Some of the action requires submersion underwater, acceleration through the air, and reckless speeds on highways that have been deteriorated by War conditions. All of which provides background for our hero to defend himself against the Relentless attacks of a plethora of Russian soldiers being directed by a Nazi war criminal. Like I said it doesn't make a lot of sense but it is a lot of fun.
Sequels inevitably involve stepping up the special effects and amping up the action. Fortunately “SISU The Road to Revenge" does not skimp on the brutality. The Battalion of men who are eliminated at some point in this movie are dispatched with guns, knives, bombs, flames and we get to see most of it. So be prepared for a brutal good time, one that is satisfying although not quite as joyful as the first film. And rest assured the dog lives.
My immediate reaction to this film was to put it in the context of the award competing films for the year. It is of course a simple hyperbole to say that if "One Battle After Another" wins the Best picture award over this movie, I will burn Hollywood to the ground. This movie is so much more thoughtful, artful and well performed that it should be in it's own category, to which the Paul Thomas Anderson movie is never given admission. I already said I did not care for that other movie in my review back in September, this film gives me another chance to diss that movie by making the unfavorable comparison.
Enough though of the movie I did not care for, let me sing the praises of this movie which I admire immensely. "Hamnet" tells us a two love stories and does so through a tragedy. Much like a Shakespearean work, the touching personal story of love is filtered through an event of tragic proportions. The screenplay divides the progress of the story into distinct acts, but they are not labeled that way in the film. Director Chloé Zhao, uses a simple black screen to transition from one segment to another, a technique that may seem alien to hyperkinetic films of this era, but one that keeps the focus on the characters and the story and not on the visual style of the director. There are plenty of other opportunities for Zhao to leave an impression elsewhere.
The first third of the film slowly introduces us to the two characters that form the center of the story. Paul Mescal plays William Shakespeare, who will one day be recognized as one of the most influential geniuses in history. The other is Agnes Hathaway, historically referred to as Anne and pronounced in the film as Annis. In a performance that defies the concept of mere acting, Jesse Buckley inhabits this fierce woman, a healer from a woodsman background, who oozes supernatural maternal abilities and a romantic essence that far exceeds mere physical beauty. I have been a fan of this actress since I saw her in "Wild Rose", and although I have not cared much for some of the subsequent films she has appeared in, my qualms were never about her work. Here, she elevates the brilliant screenplay with a earthy personality and a strength of character that will live in you memory for a long time. That's right, the spouse of the greatest playwright in history, is the character you will care the most about. That is not to diminish the performance of Mescal, who is also excellent, but to recognize that the character and the actress in this film are the core of the story.
The love story between these two characters takes up the opening segments of the film. The second love story is the adoration that they have for their children and the love that the children have for them and one another. In spite of Will's need to be in London for his profession, he maintains a strong relationship with the family he has left at home. That regular separation however becomes a keystone moment i the story when personal tragedy strikes. Will and Agnes are estranged by the bitterness that follows and the recrimination she bestows on him for his inability to be with them always. It is the hurtful expression of that failing that motivates the most well known and prolific plays, the tragedy of "Hamlet".
As usual, I don't want to give too much away, but the two main characters have different coping mechanisms when facing death. Agnes has a naturalistic view of the afterlife that is not based in religion per say but in the folklore that she subscribes to. There is a beautiful scene where the family commemorates the passing of her beloved hawk, a pet she has cared for over many years. That approach fails her when faced with an even larger loss. It is Shakespeare who finds a way for the two of them to remember their cherished loved one, in a way that keeps the promise that Agnes made to him.
The story plays out slowly, with character details taking up more time than plot incidents. This is a film that is the antithesis of action films these days, but also comedies and dramas. We have to understand the people in the story for the events to have their full weight. The methodical buildup of family relations, the measured pace of the life they lead, and the lingering moments of beauty in the film are not things that you will encounter very often in contemporary movies. Much to the detriment of the movie going experience.
For more about this film, watch for this weeks episode of the LAMBcast.
I barely remembered the original "Zootopia" film from 2016. That is nine years ago, a long time for a sequel, and for a group of kids, forever. Imagine you saw this when you were eight, and loved it. Now imagine you are seventeen and a new edition is coming out. Do you think kids in their late teens are going to relate to the movie the same way they did nearly a decade earlier? I doubt it. So how is this going to work? It's simple, Make the film completely independent of what happened in the first movie, and that's what Disney has done.
The original film had pretentions of social relevance, using animals as allegories for human prejudice. If there were a Disney film that you could point to with a social justice agenda, "Zootopia" would be it. In "Zootopia 2" however, almost all of that intersectional thought has been put into one minor basket, and the film is now replete with animal puns, takeoffs on memes and references to other movies, almost all of which provoke a chuckle without an inkling of Social Justice. This is a buddy cop movie with fur.
The original characters of Judy the rabbit and Nick the fox, are back, and now they are partners in the police department of Zootopia. They are treated as rookies and the accomplishments they made in the first film are memory holed by the other cops so that the new partners can be belittled, and shunted to the side on important police actions. Judy of course is never going to be side lined and Nick is never going to be perturbed by anything. They are the usual mis match of Type A and Gen Z. A new plot crops up and of course, the duo are destined to get involved. It feels surprisingly like a Lethal Weapon film, only without the bloody violence. A ton of secondary characters weave in and out of the story, providing comic relief and plot points along the way. The fact that the new Mayor is the opposite of a mare, is a joke that will probably be missed, but with Patrick Warburton supplying the voice of the equine executive, who cares? he almost steals every scene he is in with his mane.
The convoluted plot is really just an excuse to run our heroes through a series of fun chases through the different parts of Zootopia, so that we can get in jokes about as many species as possible. The aversion to reptiles is as close as the movie comes to making any social comment, and the snake images are fun when we get to the climate control McGuffin that powers the plot. Ginnifer Goodwin and Jason Bateman are holding onto the original character voices and doing as much as a voice actor can to bring life to the animated critters.
The movie is good looking, and the music is fun, but if does feel long for a film directed at kids. There is actually more stuff that the adults will appreciate. My very young grand niece and nephew were a little antsy halfway through the film, but their Mom and Dad seemed to be engaged. It is a solid film, but I don't expect to remember it any better tahn the first film, regardless of how much money it makes.
The sense of relief I will have when this review gets posted is hard to explain. I have been as many as seven films behind in my goal to post on all my theatrical experiences. In addition to the number of films, there is the time delay from when I saw the movie to when a post finally went up, three weeks has been the longest I have ever fallen behind but now I am past that. This movie I saw two nights ago, and it will complete my most recent backlog of posts.
"The Running Man" was originally adapted for Arnold Schwarzenegger back in the 1980s. It was a pretty cheesy film, even for the times, but on a recent revisit, I thought it was much better than I remembered. The costumed killers that pursue Ben Richards were laughable, but they were fun. The themes of media manipulation and totalitarian control were however very nicely presented, and at least in the former, very prescient. This new version trods the same path, but with less wit and more complications than the original version had. It is however, still a lot of fun.
I have been a fan of Edgar Wright as a director for a while, the "Cornetto Trilogy" is a go to whenever I want to be entertained. I was disappointed when he walked away from "Ant-Man", but I can still see the influence that he had on that film. I am a little surprised to say that the new version of the "Running Man" while certainly quite good, does not feel particularly like a Wright film. There are some particularly good stunt sequences in the film, but I did not find them as manically amusing as the chases in "Baby Driver" or the combat in "Scott Pilgrim". They felt for the most part as if they could have been created by any of the talented action directors that churn out so many other films. My sense of heightened enjoyment was muted as a result.
Of the advantages that Wright's film has over it's predecessor, I would say the acting and the effects are the things that make this movie something you should see. I think Glen Powell is a solid actor, but his part here is too straight for the humor I was hoping for. Colman Domingo however leans into his role as the Network Host who can hype up an audience, bend the truth to stir emotions, and take what he is given and turn it into ratings. It was clear he was enjoying the part. The same can also be said for the most part for Josh Brolin, who as the network head with all the power, is venal, manipulative and gleeful while being so. Powell is not a weak link, his role is just not as strong during the chase sequences as it was in the first act of the film.
The scale of the chase is vastly broader in this version of the story, and that helps quite a bit in making the film feel fresh. The special effects and video surveillance elements of the story are even stronger. While it does go over the top in the plane sequence in the third act, it was easy to believe a lot of the process of the chase in the main part of the film. The vehicles, weapons and media all project a near future that is believable. The A.I. part of the story is to me, the most frightening element of the themes. Someone else can manipulate your persona with some technological wizardry. Unfortunately, that sort of technology is mostly available now and it is easily accessible. I see posts on Facebook that look like they could be Network Promos from this film. Reality is the victim in both the fiction of this story and in the contemporary world.
Because it lacks the outlandish characters of the 1980s film, this movie does not stand out from a bunch of other sci fi action films that have proliferated in the past couple of years. They are fine, but lack enough uniqueness to make them essential. This film is solid but you will find lots of films in the same milieu without even looking hard.
I have been behind on my posts for a variety of reasons, and the major one is that I have often been wrapped up in the LAMBcast Podcast that I host. I record and edit the podcast but I also try to produce an illustrated version for YouTube. It takes a lot of time to do that, so in an effort to catch up on my promise to cover everything I see in a theater, I am simply going to share the Illustrated Podcast for "Predator Badlands" here. The short version for those unwilling to listen or watch is that I liked the film quite well.
This was a film I had almost no expectations for, after hearing nearly nothing about it. There was a paid trailer in a pre show movie presentation at another film, and that was the first time I was aware of it's existence. The world has changed in massive ways when the presence of two Academy Award winning actors, in the same film, working with one another in most of the critical scenes, is not something the media is writing about, publicity is not building up, and the stars are not being showcased in countless venues. I am happy to say however, that I made the trek to the theater to see this, and I was very impressed with the screenplay and performances.
To begin with, the trials at Nuremberg are put into a different context than one might assume. Justice Robert Jackson of the U.S. Supreme Court is a key figure in creating a framework for holding these trials in the first place. International rules of conduct did not exist, leaving a void when it came to justifying the punishments that the Nazi regime so clearly deserved. Michael Shannon gives us an intellectual legal scholar who is quiet, moral, and in some ways just over his head. Shannon gives Jackson dignity but also shows his willingness to manipulate the circumstances to fit his frame of reference. He is portrayed as a character who strives for justice, but gets stranded by the limitations his side created. The best moments of Shannon's performance are in his cross examination of Hermann Goring. His confident expression and attitude evaporate as he is flummoxed by Goring on the stand. While he is largely successful in confronting the number two Nazi, there is just enough ambiguity in the evidence to allow Goring to weasel his way out of accepting responsibility, and the look of defeat that Shannon puts on Jacksons face, is just at the right level. Richard Grant gets to save the day and the face of Jackson by following up with relevant questions that show Goring's duplicity. The relief on Shannon's face is discernable.
Rami Malek plays the psychologist Douglas Kelly, who is assigned to evaluate the prisoners and try to ensure their participation in the process by keeping them from killing themselves. He is able to convey earnestness and subterfuge very effectively on his angular face. The doctor is creating a friendly relationship with the most loathsome man on the planet, in order to protect the allies' integrity in the process. While he never seems to fall into the trap of sympathizing with the monster, he does avoid becoming the monster himself by treating his patient as a human being, a tough accomplishment. Dr. Kelly has some mixed motives because this opportunity might give him a chance to write a book which could secure a legacy in the field of psychology. Malek's role is the volatile part in the screenplay. He rants at the mistakes he sees the command making, he jousts with his patient both seriously and playfully, and he succumbs to emotions when dealing with Goring's family.
When I say the elephant in the room is Russel Crowe's performance as Hermann Goring, I could understand why someone would think I was fat shaming him. I have joked on my podcast a few times, that Crowe as a movie star makes my own visage much easier to accept. He looks like me not like Maximus or Jim Braddock. The fact that Goring was corpulent is a part of the story, as his health is a plot point. Crowe manages to suggest some vigor still in spite of playing the obese Reichsmarschall. Goring was described by Kelly as a narcissist, which was certainly true, and Crowe portrays him as an extremely confident and self assured antagonist. He is not leaning into a preening cock of the walk display of superiority, but rather an intellectual skilled at gamesmanship, who is potentially going to sew doubt in the validity of the premise of the trials in the first place. There is never any doubt he would be executed, but what it would mean, depends on him being revealed as the indifferent monster he was. Crowe gives his best performance in a decade, showing us a man who has convinced himself that he has done no wrong, in spite of being responsible for the murder of millions.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the solid work of Leo Woodall who plays the Sargent who is translator and ultimately confidant to Dr. Kelly. Justice Jackson's words give us the legal grounds for what transpired, but Sgt. Triest, as a Jewish German refugee, in the U.S. Army, provides the moral foundation that the audience will relate to. His quiet fury and desire for vengeance on one of the accused in particular, certainly seems justified, and his temperate decision at the end of the story, speaks volumes about the quality of the American's engaged in this precedent setting trial.
This was a thoroughly engaging film, with some intellectual heft and some fantastic performances. In earlier times, it would easily have been an awards contender and be named as one of the best films of the year. The standards by which movies are judged has shifted in the last few years, and it is likely that because the targets of this morality play are so easily already identified, the weight of it's value will be diminished. That is too bad. I however, am not compelled to adhere to a "correct" thinking standard, I I will just say, this is an excellent film, and your time spent with it will be worth twice that of some of the current awards contenders.
The vast majority of people who will be watching Guillermo del Toro's "Frankenstein" on Netflix, which is the company that produced the film. They will certainly enjoy the film and there is a lot to admire about the movie. I had the pleasure of seeing the film in the environment that it should be experienced in, a movie theater. Netflix was wise enough to play the film for cinema goers for a couple of weeks before reverting back to being exclusively on their streaming service.
I have a great deal of respect for del Toro, and in fact I have seen all of his theatrical films. We did a directors lookback on the LAMBcast a few years ago and I made the effort to see everything so we could cover it completely on the show.[Episode #502 October 25, 2019] Unfortunately, it is an episode lost from when we changed over the podcast storage. (Jay mat have it somewhere).
Regardless, I can say as a result of that episode that I know del Toro's work pretty well, and I have opinions that are not always inline with others. "The Shape of Water" is not a film I feel fondly of, in spite of it being his Academy Award winner. It was sanctimonious without earning the righteousness, because the artificial construct of the society was so labored it did not feel real. "Frankenstein" on the other hand, regardless of the CGI environment that it inhabits, feels realistic the whole way thru. It starts with a terrific horror action sequence that sets up the bifurcated story that de Toro has in mind. Victor Frankenstein is examined from his childhood to adult mad scientist. We can see the seeds of his mania from the relationship he had with a doting mother and mercurial father. The arrival of a younger brother that is unlike him in most ways, does not set up a rivalry, but rather a sibling connection that sometimes feels tender and at other times exploitive.
The first part of the film gives us Victor's story, including the information about discovering his scientific breakthroughs. We also get a good bit of the professional world that rejects him, even though his knowledge far outstrips their own. The animated corpse that he uses in his demonstration is one of the many visual frights/delights that the film offers. Oscar Isaac is solid as the frustrated scientist. His initial disappointment with the creation is a little hard to understand, except it is clear he has very little patience. Christoph Waltz shows up as the uncle of his brother's fiancé, and he has the resources to help Victor, and a hidden agenda. As usual, he improves the movie with his presence.
Most people are going to remember the creature as embodied by Jacob Elordi. His range covers the pathetic innocence at first awareness, and then the disappointment that comes from knowing that he is different. Finally, and most compellingly, there is the rage that drives him to seek vengeance on the creator who abandoned him. The turn of the creature from mindless brute to thoughtful avenging angel is well developed and usually ignored in most of the monster movies that the creature has been featured in.
Mia Goth continues to be one of the great, underappreciated actresses of this era. She plays the fiancé of Victor's brother, and becomes an attractive nuisance to Victor. It is clear that the two of them could easily fall into a relationship that would be damning to both of them, and it is her moral center, as contrasted to Victor's nihilism, that forms the ethical spine of the story. She is both temptress and redeemer, but more for the creature than Victor.
The movie is gorgeous on every level, even the things in the world of the time, that are ugly, are spectacular to look at. This handsome production makes elaborate use of CGI sets and backgrounds, but it comes closer to reality than most of the out of focus backgrounds we get in most CGI heavy films. It looked particularly good on the big screen. The streaming service will be most peoples default viewing, and I can honestly say, you will regret that you didn't get to see this in a theater. This is one of my favorite films this year.
