Eternals

 

So this is the third film in Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and so far, they are batting .333. Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings was terrific, Black Widow was so-so, and this is warmed over leftovers from a meal that I don't remember ordering. It's not that it's a bad film, it just feels like the DC Universe has rubbed off on the MCU, and that the goal of creating interconnected stories has become more important than telling a compelling story. There are ten new characters that are being put on the plate in front of us and we are supposed to care immediately? I don't think so. This is a distinct group of superheroes, true, but unlike the X-Men, where we got a similar character dump, there is not as much popular history to ease us in, and the characters start fighting amongst themselves before we have much of an idea of how they fit into the whole picture of MCU films. 

The Eternals seem to fit into the same category of human development as the monolith in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Their appearance seems to arrive to  prompt civilization in ways that will make the planet and its inhabitants more useful to the universe. Early on however, there is an indicator of a hidden agenda, and after an hour or so of trying to get us familiar with these characters, we are let in on their true purpose and one can legitimately wonder where this idea came from. Part of the plot focuses on the creation of Celestials, who are certainly different creatures as illustrated by "Ego" from "Guardians of the Galaxy V.2" . The brief history we are given here is designed to hide some of the surprises that are instore for the film, but they end up becoming confusing and seem inconsistent with prior knowledge and even things brought up for the first time in this story. 

The Ten new characters are supposed to fight Deviants, who are depicted as mindless animals early on but for some reason develop an ethos later in the film that legitimately, provokes some philosophical  conversation. That conundrum though is quickly overtaken by a sudden change of heart by the leader of  the Earthbound Eternals, Salma Hayek's Ajak. I say it is a sudden turn despite the fact it takes place over a 7000 year period, because in the context of what we learn about the Eternals origins, that is a blink of an eye. For a group of heroes, who supposedly think of themselves as a family, I would say they are a dysfunctional family. There are resentments, jealousy, and apparent psychological trauma in this group. The only time they seem to cooperate is when a Deviant is in the immediate vicinity. The big threat of the story therefore ends up coming primarily from the group itself, rather than an outside force. We seem to have jumped right into "Civil War" without the preceding dozen films that it took for The Avengers to get to. Richard Madden and Gemma Chan as Ikaris and Sersi, are a couple who end up on opposite sides of the dilemma, and it seems completely real that they have broken up as a couple, although there is no hint that this was the reason. 

Clearly the intent of the film makers was to create a team of heroes that is as inclusive as possible. There is a great degree of diversity among the Eternals, but some of it is a little confusing given what we ultimately learn about their origins. There are some interesting ideas in the story that will not get the attention they deserve because there are so many characters. The character of Sprite is eternally pre pubescent, but 7,000 years of life have given her feelings that are not resolvable given her physical development. The emotional choice that she makes seems to be natural, but like everyone else in the story it doesn't last long. Kumail Nanjiani is a hoot as Kingo, but when the climax comes, he is no where to be found. I enjoyed Ma Dong-seok as Gilgamesh, the keeper of the nearly mad Thena played by Angelina Jolie. Their relationship is more touching and believable than any of the others in the film, and that is another problem, Jolie is under utilized and the character of Gilgamesh is not on screen for most of the second half of the film. Brian Tyree Henry as Phastos is supposed to have the sarcastic wit in the film, but it feels way more labored than his work in Godzilla v. Kong, and that is saying something. The Ikea joke falls flat and that was supposed to be the big punchline that they used in the trailer.  

There is a mid-credit scene and a scene after the credits, so the MCU fans will have plenty to speculate on, but they have nothing to do with what we saw and they raise some questions about the relationships we have seen in earlier MCU films. Maybe this will be an extension of themes covered in the comic books, but it is an example of overload in the film. I'm writing this a couple of days after seeing the movie and my memory of the events is already fading. This is a movie intended to launch the new characters in the MCU but it does not do it in a way that is very inspiring. I love the series of films and I want them to grow, but somewhere along the way, the spectacle overwhelmed the characters and stories and that is a problem. Maybe it's just me, my favorite MCU films have been Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger and Ant-Man, which were all stand alone stories, so the team up concept takes some time getting used to. James Gunn managed to pull it off with Guardians but director Chloé Zhao, seems like she may have bitten off too big a chunk to have the same result. 

As I said, I did not dislike the movie, I just didn't like it very much. Like all things, maybe it will grow on me, but for now that's where I stand. 

Unbroken

When I first saw the trailer/interview preview for this movie almost a year ago, I made a bold prediction that it would be the Oscar winner for Best picture this year. I can't withdraw that prediction completely because the story of Louis Zamperini is still as inspiring as ever and the movie is very competently put together. There is however something missing from the film and as a result it does not live up to my lofty expectations. While it remains one of the few films this year to attempt to tell an adult story with an inspiring message, it is only in the last few minutes of the movie, when the coda of Zamerini's life is given to us that the emotions match the story.

The film touches on many of the key moments that make the story extraordinarily, but it misses a few moments that are also important in tone and spirit of the subject's life. The first thing I noticed was the lack of background on his friendship with fellow survivor and pilot Phil Phillips. Their earlier close call is shown but the relationship between them is hinted at rather than featured. The sequence by which they ended up in the plane they eventually crashed in does little to show how the flyers felt about the weapons that were being produced and the sense of fate that often accompanied their flights. The decision to tell the story as a series of flashbacks in the first half of the movie makes sense. An hour on the two rafts in the ocean without some relief would make the story feel slow. The structure robs the narrative of the drive and promise that Louis had as he climbed the ladder of track and field royalty and as the intervention of service in the military changed all of that. Not to mention that it left out entirely his time at U.S.C. where he encountered a Japanese student who would later come back into the story. All of the cuts are made to keep focus on the endurance of the survival story but it leaves that story without the emotional context it needs. The childhood thuggery was displaced by the sports enthusiasm but even that could not suppress the mischievous nature that Louis had, a nature that lead to a confrontation during the Olympics with his theft of a Nazi flag. 

The most successful sequence in the film concerns the crash of the plane and the extraordinary survival story on the rafts. The forty five days depicted here are replete with harrowing moments of physical threat from man and nature as well as the despair that anyone in those circumstances is likely to face. The crash itself is a piece of technical film making that rivals the special effects in large action pictures but is so much more meaningful because it depicts a reality rather than the fanciful. It does not involves elves and orcs dancing across a chasm over a collapsing tower. That fanciful image can be put together in a number of ways because it is a fiction. The B-24 crash that killed eight of the eleven crew members has to ring true and it does. The unpleasant six weeks that followed is visualized with accuracy, probably a combination of make-up special effects and acting talent. The interaction of the men as they cope with mind numbing tedium and spirit crushing fear was nicely detailed in small exchanges and moments. Those who have read the book know how they trio wondered at their ability to survive after breaking the 24 day record for being adrift at sea set by Eddie Rickenbacker and crew the year before. The degree of exposure, dehydration and malnutrition is had to imagine. All of this ends up being a prelude to the elements of the movie that Director Angelina Jolie, and the screen writers choose to focus on, the internment in the Japanese prison camps.

The malicious nature of the captors is well portrayed by Japanese musician/actor Takamasa Ishihara. "The Bird" as he was known by the P.O.W.s , had a sadistic nature that made him a sought after war criminal once the hostilities ended. The suffering that Zamperini especially endured at his hands makes the later story of Louis forgiveness and redemption more meaningful. The film however summarizes all of that in  some post script title cards rather than taking time to show us that transformation. Actor Jack O'Connell has to portray the physical strength and power of endurance that Zamperini displays but never gets much of a chance to connect with the spiritual. Emaciated, tortured, worked to near extinction, the body work is evident but the spirit is only shown in those contexts where abuse provokes it. The result is that the movie feels like a more brutal version of "Bridge on the River Kwai" or "King Rat" rather than the spiritual journey that the history really reflects. Domhnall Gleeson's Phil disappears from the story and the religious seeds that he plants are not show to sprout much in the duration of the war.

I suspect that the movie will be criticized by others for the same reasons I've made, regarding the film that it is not rather than the one that is given to us. There is so much promise in the way the movie is visualized and acted that it feels a shame that the ultimate emotional point only occurs when we see the real Louis Zamperini in some clips at the end . As a matter of heroism, "Unbroken" feels rich and well developed. The circumstances are set up and depicted with real honesty, it simply does not connect the way that the real historical figure managed to do with his own words and deeds.

Maleficent

Disney is doing it's darndest to exploit all their properties and keep us entertained at the same time. A traditional retelling of "Sleeping Beauty" could have worked fine, just as the live action "101 Dalmatians" did a dozen or so years ago. Somewhere in the bowels of the Imagineering Department or in the Production agreement with big movie stars, someone has decided that a straight remake is not cool, and a story needs to be tweaked to make it fresh. The best known example of this in the recent past has been the musical "Wicked". A couple of years ago, Disney re-imagined "Alice in Wonderland". Now it is time for a classic fairy tale to get it's own variation and they have chosen one with a great villainess which makes the visualization a handy shortcut to the story.

There is a great deal to admire about this movie. I thought the opening section in which the character of "Maleficent" is introduced in her child form was really marvelous. The character was appealing and there is a nice romantic edge to the story line that is being developed. The character of Stephan however, is not quite as nicely developed and it was hard to see the conflicting choices he was faced with until the key scenes in the movie. The character development here was incomplete which makes some of the plotting a little muddled. Although a conflict between the two worlds was suggested in the narration, we are not really shown any of that except in a direct combat scene. One side is immediately presented as evil and as a result, they lose any interest as part of the story. A whole Kingdom becomes a cardboard cutout villain. The movie shows armies and battles but nothing that would back up the need or desire for those battles.

My daughter has watched "Once Upon a Time" and we have both seen "Frozen" so the twist in the movie is not as great as it should be. I liked it pretty well but she feels that it is almost becoming a contemporary cliche. The movie is aggressively unromantic and that trend may reflect blowback from all the years that Disney has been accused of brainwashing little girls about "true love" and the handsome prince. The switch in tone is meant to appeal to more modern audiences and ways of thinking, but it feels like something of the magic is being lost by doing this. The outcome does differ from tradition and while that might sometimes be appealing, it does feel strange when being thrust upon a story like this. In a way it makes the calculation of changing the character focus even more noticeable.

Angelina Jolie was obviously perfectly cast in the movie. She almost has the high cheekbones without the prosthetic and special effects makeup. Her eyes do a lot of the acting in the movie but her voice is also used exceptionally well. She is the main reason to see the film. She appears to be invested in telling the story and selling her performance. She has two emotional transformations that she has to pull off and both of them succeed pretty well. The second one is more subtle and takes up much of the storyline but it feels solid because it is allowed to play out. You can see the turn coming, but you can also believe that it might not get here, That is the value of her performance. It is a bit disconcerting that the bad guy has to be the hero and the reverse happens as well. I hope that the desire to tell traditional stories doesn't require us to subvert what came before every time. I'm willing to go along today because of the casting and performance, but screenwriters should be careful about going to that well too frequently.

This may have been a film where the 3D process would be worth seeing. I saw it in a regular two dimensional form and the edges of characters looked soft and artificial to me. I saw several spots where the extra dimensionality would be exciting in the scene, and make the events in those sequences more dynamic. The creatures of the moors that Maleficent is the de-facto queen over look a bit cartoonish and sometimes silly. There are long sequences where the beauty of the woods is supposed to be a marvel but it just looks conventional and weak. The best live comparison I could think of to make was Ridley Scott's "Legend". The enchanted forest in that film looked more real on the sets than anything in this CGI wonderland that has been created for the character here to inhabit.

You may notice that I've said nothing about Sleeping Beauty herself. Elle Fanning is a good actress, she was great in "Super 8" a couple of years ago. She is fine in this film but there is so little to her part that almost any pretty young actress would have been fine in the role. It has to be a thankless task to star in a fairy tale as the princess who is subject to a curse, and end up playing second fiddle to a character that might be mostly defined by her horns. The three good faeries are played strictly for laughs and between them and King Stephan, there is no emotional investment in what goes on with Aurora. There is more to say but it is late and I've been busy this weekend as you will see if you visit the other blog.  I may come back and add some more to this review but for now i can say it was an interesting experience that I can't quite warm up to, but did admire at times.