LES MISÉRABLES

Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+

How one takes in this new French film Les Misérables, in U.S. theaters currently, will differ slightly depending on what context is at hand, what kind of literary as well as motion picture history can be drawn from, if at all—not to mention French history itself, both centuries back and a decade and a half back. Citizens of France and particularly Paris, with a working memory of the 2005 riots that occurred there, have no doubt had a unique point of view on this film.

My own background knowledge of all these elements is limited, to say the least. This Les Misérables is different from the 1862 novel by Victor Hugo (easily one of the most famous works of French literature ever written), or the stage musical adaptation by the same name that premiered in France in 1980, translated and expanded in English for a London premiere in 1985 and first premiered on Broadway in 1986, which I have also never seen. I merely saw the 2012 movie musical adaptation starring Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman, and although it was one of countless adaptations, with its live on-set singing, it stood apart.

This Les Misérables stands apart as well, but for entirely different reasons. This is not even close to a direct adaptation, although there are clearly thematic through lines. Fundamentally, though, its only connection to Victor Hugo is that it shares the title, and it is set in the same neighborhood Hugo lived in when he wrote the novel. These are very deliberate choices on the part of French director Ladj Ly, who uses subtle means to evoke national pride, history, injustice, and police brutality.

The police brutality is a particularly key element, and much of the film’s run time there is an expectation of violence that never comes . . . until it does. It never gets all that graphic, but it gets its point across. And it involves a reckless teenager caught in the crosshairs, who, much like the original Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s novel, receives punishment that is far out of proportion to his crimes.

After opening on scenes of national unity and celebration when France won the World Cup, crosscut with the opening titles, it takes a little while for a story even to take shape. We follow three police officers, one of them on his first day after transferring to the city to be closer to his child who lives with his ex-wife, making rounds in this gritty Paris suburb and generally puffing their chests and occasionally harassing people. They do a “police check” on a group of young girls just waiting for a bus at a bus stop, and when one of them tries to record them with her phone, the officer with the shortest fuse grabs her phone and hurls it at the sidewalk.

It’s relevant to note that two of these cops are white, one of them black, and when a confrontation with a group of kids escalates to a dangerous degree, it’s the black cop who goes overboard and injures one of them, also a black kid. I know nothing of class, immigration issues, or race relations and the many nuances thereof that are no doubt specific to France, but it is almost curious that director Ladj Ly puts no obvious element of racial tension in his film—only tension between native French citizens and immigrants (though most of the latter are Muslim and black), and particularly between the residents of this suburb and law enforcement. A story like this would absolutely play out differently if made in the U.S., but here, the otherwise most-hotheaded cop is all about protecting the other cops on his “team,” and the story that proceeds from here is about retrieving the memory card from a drone they notice hovering overhead, having recorded the entire incident.

We see that drone earlier in the film, controlled by another young black boy in the neighborhood, using it to peep into the windows of teenage girls in one of the wide, blocky high-rise apartment buildings. It therefore comes as no surprise that the drone becomes a key figure in the plotting to come. There is a bit of a clever trick to the cinematography here, though, because instead of just being yet another movie with obvious drone shots for nice effect, these camera angles actually serve the story. It doesn’t hurt that the shots also happen to work very well on an aesthetic level.

This all builds to a predictably violent confrontation, after some odd asides including the kidnapping of a local circus troupe’s lion cub. Ly stops the story short in the midst of an individual standoff, leaving us to decide for ourselves where it goes from there, but making it clear that all parties involved have created an untenable situation that cannot possibly end well for any of them. The richness of history, both long ago and recent, very much informs the action here, but this Les Misérables offers plenty of food for thought either way.

Misguided police tactics: they’re everywhere.

Overall: B+

JUST MERCY

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+

Just Mercy is an inspiring story that feels very much like the movie version of that story, “based on” the truth but sprinkled with contrivances to make it work as a story told over the course of a couple of hours. Within those confines, though, it works quite well. The average movie-goer with an interest in movies of this sort will quite like it.

More than once I found myself thinking of the 1995 film Dead Man Walking, which was even more pointed in its anti-death penalty message—and had also been based on a true story. And although that story was about a specific case, the implications were still about the broad morality of capital punishment without sociopolitical context. That context is what Just Mercy provides, shifting the setting to Monroe County, Alabama, and highlighting the systemic racism that led to the wrongful murder conviction of Walter McMillian.

Just Mercy includes this statistic in the midst of much information about its characters just before the end credits, but it bears mentioning here: for every 9 death row executions in the U.S., one person on death row has been exonerated—”a shocking rate of error.” Indeed. And this movie uses McMillian to put a face on how senseless capital punishment is. Even for those who believe in its effectiveness in theory have to admit our system is not equipped to implement it efficiently.

I happen to believe capital punishment is morally wrong whether the person is guilty or not, but that’s a conversation for another space—although Just Mercy makes pretty clear it has the same message: when McMillian’s death row neighbor, who suffers from PTSD and should actually be in a hospital, feels genuine guilt for a woman who did die because of him, McMillion tells him that doesn’t give anyone the right to do the same to him.

This is all not to say that Just Mercy is particularly heavy handed about its messaging; it really is not, and makes for a compelling story on its own merits. The cast is top notch, with memorable performances by Jamie Foxx as Walter McMillian; Michael B. Jordan as Byran Stevenson, the idealistic lawyer trying to help; and Brie Larson all but disappears into the part as Eva Ansley, the Operations Director of the Equal Justice Initiative she co-founded with Stevenson. We’re also treated to the dependable Tim Blake Nelson as a key witness who also happens to be a convicted felon.

Ansley is handled well in the film, but I have more mixed feelings about a couple of the other white characters, who have a kind of “moral awakening” by the end of the story, including a prison guard, as well as the Monroe County District Attorney. To be fair, the latter character may have changed his mind only when he realized he could no longer win this fight. But the prison guard feels a little like a character thrown in to make white people feel better about all the widespread racism and bigotry, a thread of redemption that likely was not so easily found in the real struggle of proving McMillian’s innocence.

And of course, the story beats are familiar, with the requisite, climactic rousing speech in a courtroom near the end. At least the gathered crowd didn’t erupt into applause. More realistically, the gathered community breathes a collective cry of relief when they finally get what has been fought for in the face of insane obstacles spanning several years.

It should come as no surprise and is thus not a spoiler to say Just Mercy has a happy ending. But boy, was it a difficult road to get there. And that road includes the execution of one of McMillian’s fellow inmates after a request for a stay is denied. The inclusion of this scene, which is very difficult to watch and maybe the most heartbreaking in the film, is necessary. It only becomes easy to tolerate the inhumane when the practice has no human face associated with it. Just Mercy is a tale of persistence and resilience, a textbook case of overcoming adversity. Its telling may be patently conventional, but that in no way diminishes its impact.

He got by with a lot of help from a friend.

Overall: B+

I'd Like to Thank the Academy

(And the nominees are...) Okay, let's just get this out of the way: Joker leads the pack with 11 nominations, which basically makes one of the year's biggest piles of garbage a huge Oscar front-runner. Should I finally lose all faith in humanity? Nah, maybe not. I mean, in Joker's defense, it's a gorgeously shot, beautifully scored, impeccably acted pile of garbage. That said, three other movies came quite close to tying that number, with ten nominations each: The Irishman, 1917, and Once Upon a Time ... In Hollywood. Each of the are more deserving of every award than Joker, though by varying margins. But, that's not a very high bar either. Academy voters sure do know how to set that bar low. Anyway, let's get on with it!
Actor in a Leading Role Antonio Banderas, Pain and Glory
Leonardo DiCaprio, Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood
Adam Driver, Marriage Story
Joaquin Phoenix, Joker
Jonathan Pryce, The Two Popes WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Ugh. This feels like a bad omen, starting with the first award almost guaranteed to go to Joker. Adam Driver was the front runner for some time, but at the moment Joaquin Phoenix seems all but guaranteed to win.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: You know what? I'm not sure I made this decision until this very moment. This is the first time Antonio Banderas has ever been nominated, amazingly, and he actually did Oscar-worthy work in Pain and Glory. I'd be happy to see Adam Driver win too, but if I were voting, and I were voting today, my vote would go to Antonio Banderas.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I really hate that I am saying this, because I prefer to say Joker doesn't deserve any Oscars for any reason, but even though I enjoyed The Two Popes and Jonathan Pryce is great, I'd still say he's the least deserving out of this group.
Actress in a Leading Role Cynthia Erivo, Harriet
Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story
Saoirse Ronan, Little Women
Charlize Theron, Bombshell
Renée Zellweger, Judy WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Renée Zellweger has all but won this award already, judging by the predictions of everyone and their mother for the past four months. Given that she already has an Oscar, and Judy was merely good and not great, I would be delighted if an upset happened and any of the other women in this category won.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: To be fair, I actually think Zellweger winning would be absolutely fair. Upon further reflection, though, I think I vote for Saoirse Ronan, who has been a stunning performer since as far back as Atonement in 2007—four nominations ago!
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I honestly don't think either Cynthia Erivo or Scarlett Johansson deserve this award, at least not for these roles. Even though they are both fantastic actors, and Erivo is in the truly unfortunate position of being the "token black" among the acting nominees this year. Or even more accurately, "token nonwhite." I would have preferred to see Awkwafina nominated for The Farewell, a movie which inexplicably got no nominations at all.
Actor in a Supporting Role Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes
Al Pacino, The Irishman Joe Pesci, The Irishman
Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood WHO I THINK WILL WIN: If Brad Pitt does not win this award, it will be the biggest Oscar upset of the night.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I'm pulling for Tom Hanks, here with his first Oscar nomination in nineteen years, which is extraordinary. But, this is the sole nomination given to A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, which does not bode well for it.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Al Pacino in The Irishman? Come on. That movie is decent but wildly overrated, and Al Pacino's is the most blustery performance in it.
Actress in a Supporting Role Kathy Bates, Richard Jewell
Laura Dern, Marriage Story
Scarlett Johansson, Jojo Rabbit
Florence Pugh, Little Women
Margot Robbie, Bombshell WHO I THINK WILL WIN: If all the prognosticators are to be believed, Laura Dern is a lock. Which honestly makes little sense to me; she's a great actor but she's hardly doing her best work in this particular part.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Among this group, I think perhaps Margot Robbie gave the best—and certainly the most nuanced—performance.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I love Kathy Bates. And I haven't even seen Richard Jewell. But, I know enough about it to know this nomination—the only one given to this film—was not necessary, nor did Bates need it.
Cinematography The Irishman, Rodrigo Prieto
Joker, Lawrence Sher
The Lighthouse, Jarin Blaschke
1917, Roger Deakins
Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood, Robert Richardson WHO I THINK WILL WIN: This one seems a lock for 1917, although I can also see Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood pulling through here.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: 1917 is indeed the obvious choice; the camera work in that movie is legitimately amazing.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I'm sorry, but the cinematography in The Irishman was just nothing special. Even in The Joker, the cinematography was one of the few things actually worthy of high compliment.
Production Design The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
1917
Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood
Parasite WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I would bet money that Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood will win this one. The cinematography actually is great, plus Hollywood loves movies about itself, especially nostalgic ones.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: It's too well integrated to be noticeable, but the production design iin 1917 is actually by far the most impressive thing about it, once you really think on it.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Jojo Rabbit? Really? That movie will not win this award, nor should it.
Costume Design The Irishman, Sandy Powell and Christopher Peterson
Jojo Rabbit, Mayes C. Rubeo
Joker, Mark Bridges
Little Women, Jacqueline Durran
Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood, Arianne Phillips WHO I THINK WILL WIN: This category is often used to throw a bone to period films, so I'm betting on Little Women.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Little Women also actually deserves it.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: The only reason Joker even got this nomination is because an inexplicably huge number of people are jizzing themselves over that garbage dump of a movie. There are some elements that really are impressive about it, which makes it even more annoying, but this is absolutely not one of them. Are we supposed to cheer because the guy was dressed in a red and orange suit?
Directing Martin Scorsese, The Irishman
Todd Phillips, Joker
Sam Mendes, 1917
Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood
Bong Joon Ho, Parasite WHO I THINK WILL WIN: This one is a tough call. The real answer is "I have no idea." Gun to my head, I would say Sam Mendes for 1917. If that happens, I'll bet anything this will be yet another year in which Best Director and Best Picture are split—and Joker wins Best Picture. I'll just have to keep my barf bucket handy.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Sam Mendes, actually! I would also be happy with Bong Joon Ho, although his movie was wildly over-hyped and that did it no favors. With 1917, though, I was duly impressed even with that movie's own large amount of critical praise.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Listen, everyone. The Irishman just isn't the "great film" cinephiles seem to think it is.
Film Editing Ford v. Ferrari, Michael McCusker and Andew Buckland
The Irishman, Thelma Schoonmaker
Jojo Rabbit, Tom Eagles
Joker, Jeff Groth
Parasite, Yang Jinmo WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Given the subject matter and how incredibly well put-together its racing sequences are, I'm actually going to predict that this will be the only Oscar Ford v. Ferrari wins.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I'd be happy with Ford v. Ferrari, but thanks to its intricate plotting, Parasite is arguably more deserving.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Again with The Irishman! I get that its massive length is part of the point; its ending would not be as effective without all the time spent on what leads up to it. The same effect could still have been achieved by cutting this movie down to three hours. Why would we give the editing award to the guy who refused to edit?
Makeup and Hairstyling Bombshell
Joker
Judy
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
1917 WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I can pretty easily see Joker winning this one, just because a lot of times Academy voters like to be on the nose.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I'm going with Bombshell on this one, its actors—particularly Charlize Theron—were so impressively transformed.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Joker can shove a bundle of makeup brushes right up its own ass.
Music (Original Score) Joker, Hildur Guðnadóttir
Little Women, Alexandre Desplat
Marriage Story, Randy Newman
1917, Thomas Newman
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, John Williams WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I really can't answer this one with any authority whatsoever either, but I'm still going to guess 1917.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: You know what? I don't really give a shit.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Well, except that of course I really don't want Joker to win this one either.
Music (Original Song) "I Can't Let You Throw Yourself Away," from Toy Story 4, Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
"(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again," from Rocket Man, Music by Elton John, Lyric by Bernie Taupin
"I'm Standing With You," from Breakthrougj, Music and Lyric by Diane Warren
"Into the Unknown," from Frozen II, Music and Lyric by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez
"Stand Up," from Harriet, Music and Lyric by Joshuah Brian Campbell and Cynthia Erivo WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I think this will be Rocketman's one Oscar win. (It's also its one nomination.)
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: If there were any justice in the world—and as we all know, particularly in the world of the Acadeny, there often is not—then Cynthia Erivo, while not deserving of the acting award in this case, would at least be rewarded for her truly incredible voice.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: The trailer alone revealed Breakthrough to be a bunch of religious claptrap best avoided. It will be cool to see This Is Us's Chrissy Metz sing a song at the Academy Awards, but for this movie, that should be enough of an award.
Visual Effects Avengers: Endgame
The Irishman
The Lion King
1917
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker WHO I THINK WILL WIN: It won't be at all justified, but I think this will go to Avengers: Endgame, not because it actually has the best effects, but because it was a massive box office smash, and it's the only award it's even eligible for. And voters will likely vote for the movie with the most visual effects, as opposed to the best.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: This is also the only award nomination for The Lion King—which did not even get the widely expected Original Song nod—but, that's still the movie that deserves the win. None of the other movies come even close to how visually amazing this film is.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Avengers: Endgame is only here as a consolation prize in this year's popularity contest, and because of how noisy and packed with effects it is. That hardly makes it the best.
Writing (Adapted Screenplay) The Irishman, Screenplay by Steven Zaillian
Jojo Rabbit, Screenplay by Taika Waititi
Joker, Written by Todd Phillips & Scott Silveri
Little Women, Written for the screen by Greta Gerwig
The Two Popes, Written by Anthony McCarten WHO I THINK WILL WIN: The current odds are apparently the same for both The Irishman and Little Women as the front runner in this category. I don't think The Irishman will actually win many of the 10 awards for it was nominated, but I think it likely has the edge here. Unfortunately, Little Women just isn't getting the respect it deserves, so I don't even trust it being regarded as a front runner. But, I'd love to be proven wrong.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Honestly, I'm realizing at this very moment that among these five films, I think The Two Popes actually has the best-written dialogue.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Joker is less deserving of this award in particular than any of those it was nominated for. Did a bunch of people's hands slip and nominate this film by accident? Its script is by far Joker's biggest problem—big enough to make the movie irredeemable. A well-shot and well-acted piece of shit is still a piece of shit. Watching Joker is the metaphorical equivalent of looking at a turd in HD.
Writing (Original Screenplay) Knives Out, Written by Rian Johnson
Marriage Story, Written by Noah Baumbach
1917, Written by Sam Mendes & Krysty Wilson-Cairns
Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood, Written by Quentin Tarantino
Parasite, Screenplay by Bong Joon Ho, Han Jin Won; Story by Bong Joon Ho WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood, even though it doesn't deserve it. But, this is where Tarantino has gotten his previous two Oscar wins as well as half his ttotal Oscar nominations, and this is by far his most-nominated film to date. If he wins any Oscar this year—and he is likely to win multiple—then it will be this one.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: It'll never happen, but I would be ecstatic if Knives Out won this award. I'd also be really happy with Parasite.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Ironically, I actually think Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood is the least deserving of these five films. People love that movie so much they somehow overlook the many flaws in its script.
Animated Feature Film How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World
I Lost My Body
Klaus
Missing Link
Toy Story 4 WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Well, this is new. I've only seen one of these films! I still think Pixar will prevail and Toy Story 4 will win.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I really couldn't say.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I couldn't really say here either, although Missing Link looked pretty dumb.
International Feature Corpus Christi, Directed by Jan Komasa (Poland)
Honeyland, Directed by Ljubo Stefanov and Tamara Kotevksa (North Macedonia)
Le Misérables, Directed by Ladj Ly (France)
Pain and Glory, Directed by Pedro Almodóvar (Spain)
Parasite, Directed by Bong Joon Ho (South Korea) WHO I THINK WILL WIN: You'd have to be a corpse not to know that Parasite will win this award.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Honeyland was the best movie I saw all year, but I don't see the sense in awarding it for both the categories in which it was nominated. Here, I would also go for Parasite. Bong Joon Ho deserves a win.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I can't answer this for this category either, as I only saw three of the films, and all three of them were either very good or phenomenal.
Documentary Feature American Factory, Steven Bognar, Julia Reichert and Jeff Reichert
The Cave, Feras Fayyad, Kirstine Barfod and Sigrid Dyekjær
The Edge of Democracy, Petra Costa, Joanna Natasegara, Shane Boris and Tiago Pavan
For Sama, Waad al-Kateab and Edward Watts
Honeyland, Ljubo Stefanov, Tamara Kotevska and Atanas Georgiev WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I haven't seen it (and I really should; it's now streaming on Netflix), but I still know the buzz is all about American Factory, and by a stunningly wide margin.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: If Academy voters did their jobs (and I am not an Academy member, so I have more of an excuse for not having seen quite all of these movies!), they would watch every screener available to them—and if they had any sense, they would vote for Honeyland.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Any movie that is not Honeyland. In this case I don't care that I haven't seen any of the other nominees! In fact I usually omit this category for this very reason, but with Honeyland being my favorite movie of the year, I had to include it.
Best motion picture of the year Ford v. Ferrari
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Joker
Little Women
Marriage Story
1917
Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood
Parasite WHO I THINK WILL WIN: All bets appear to be on Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood, an I see no reason not to make that my expectation as well. As long as Joker doesn't win, I'll be satisfied—although the love for that movie is so irritating to me, I can still see a surprise win for it here. That's right, every voter is just thinking, What will annoy Matthew the most?
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Well, this is strange. Only two of these movies were on my top 10 for the year (Little Women and Ford v. Ferrari), so I guess I should choose one of those, huh? Except! I didn't even get a chance to see 1917 until last week, after I had written up my top 10—and it would have been on it had it been given the chance. So, 1917 is my choice.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Joker. Joker. JOKER. Fuuuuck Joker! How many times do I have to say it? Actually for a while there I thought I would be reserving this attitude for Jojo Rabbit, which is overrated and problematic in its own unique ways, and it looked like it might ride a wave similar to last year's Green Book. So much for that! I've got so much hate for Joker that I've hardly got time to resent Jojo Rabbit, which now seems unlikely to win any of these awards anyway. What tragic irony that I would rather see it win anything than Joker. That wrongminded movie made by a troupe of dipshits will now dominate this year's Oscar conversation, and I can't wait for that part to be over. Or at least, to revel in some of its inevitable defeats; it won't possibly win them all, and I'll take solace in that much, I guess.
(Nominations for documentary short, animated short, live action short, sound editing, and sound mixing were also announced, but I don't know enough about them to make any worthwhile observations.) The 92nd Academy Awards telecast will air on ABC Sunday, February 9 at 5 p.m. Pacific Time.

VARDA BY AGNÈS

Directing: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B-
Editing: B-

My take on Varda by Agnès will be unfair. It will also be surprising, in light of how much I enjoyed the 2017 documentary Faces Places, which was largely about the same woman—or, half of it was, anyway. It’s just that Faces Places was about just one of Agnès Varda’s many artistic exploits, and it happened to be one of her far more interesting ones. Varda by Agnès is much more a retrospective of her entire life’s work, with a heavy focus on her work as a film director, and for me at least, it just wasn’t anywhere near as compelling.

Not that it matters to the, say, two and a half people who might bother reading this review. How many of you even know who Agnès Varda is? or was—in contrast to Faces Places, Varda by Agnès has been released after her death nearly a year ago, in late March 2019. I didn’t even realize that until coming home from the movie today, at which I did marvel at her mental acuity at such an age, still creating art, which she evidently did to the very end. She clearly took great joy in her work, and had a stunning vitality for her age. We should all be so lucky to be like Agnès.

And, to be fair, if you are familiar with Agnès Varda, and you have interest in the broad spectrum of her work, you will no doubt find Varda by Agnès worth your time. And even I found some of this movie’s presentation interesting: it edits together footage from an apparent speaking tour, in which Varda sits on a stage, refers to notes, and regales live theater audiences with observations about the whole of her career. Much of it is then intercut with the works to which she is referring, and this does mean there is a fair amount of crossover using footage already seen in Faces Places. In fact, once this film reached that point in her career, for a moment I wondered if it was the same movie.

Nope. I would recommend you check out that other film, actually. It’s available for rent on iTunes and it’s better than this movie, the place at which you could watch it now, I could not tell you. It played as a film at the SIFF Film Center at Seattle Center this weekend only, and was apparently first a two-part TV miniseries. The theater showings, locally at least, are now all done. I only went to see it because it has a stunningly high score of 85 on MetaCritic. A lesson I still need to learn, apparently: those scores do not always reflect your personal tastes.

I’m sad to say that Varda by Agnès literally put me to sleep. I mean, I did not sleep through the whole movie; I did see most of it. But I kept nodding off, and relentlessly so, largely because of the strangely soothing sound of Varda’s “sweet old lady” voice. And I don’t speak French, so if my eyelids droop at all and I can no longer see the subtitles, it just becomes a very pleasant sort of white noise.

I could never say with any authority that it would have the very same effect on any other viewer, of course. This woman was clearly overflowing with talent. Conversely, she was not always without pretension—a bit of an irony, given her reference to some others in this film as being “not pretentious.” Many clips of her films are shown here, a lot of them just presenting nude subjects in “artistic” poses. It smacked of the kind of “art film” sensibility often spoofed by sketch comedy.

To be fair, it’s entirely possible I could feel completely differently were I to watch Agnès by Varda at another time, with a different mindset. This is that kind of movie. There are some compelling stylistic choices, with Varda commenting on the blending of staged action with documentary filmmaking—something she and JR did in Faces Places, and was one of my few least favorite things about that film—at the very same time she’s doing the same thing here. In one scene, she talks about shooting tracking shots, while riding the rig directors use to shoot tracking shots,, and the shot itself is a tracking shot. In another moment, she speaks to breaking the fourth wall, and in so doing, she breaks the fourth wall.

And I am usually super into this sort of meta commentary, particularly on filmmaking. But, for whatever reason, about 80% of this movie just plain bored me. Perhaps it would have been a different story had I even known who Agnès Varda was before February 2018, and I had been following her stunningly long, sixty-year career. Sometimes you just need a hell of a lot more historical context for something to work.

Turns out Agnès herself is more captivating than her work.

Overall: B-

1917

Directing: A-
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: A-
Editing: A
Special Effects: A

When 1917 begins, it feels pretty standard. The camera opens to a green, flowery field, until we pull back and immediately meet our two principal characters: Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay), taking a breather near the front lines in the third year of World War I. Blake is approached by another soldier, told to “choose someone” and to report to their captain; he chooses Schofield, evidently because he happens to be closest, and they head on over.

The camera follows them, making occasional turns to the right or left, without any discernible cuts. And that, really, is the hook of the entire movie for 1917. Much has been made of this film, if not actually being, then appearing to be “one single long take,” and a minor source of irritation, after seeing it, is that this description is not quite accurate. Just as happened in the similarly shot—and similarly exhilarating—Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014), it actually has the appearance of just two single, long takes. There is a moment when Schofield gets knocked out cold, and the screen goes black for several seconds. When he comes to and the picture comes back, several hours have passed and it is almost morning. Clearly that does not count as the entire movie being shot in “real time.” But, it’s close. It has two sections that are shot in real time, and just to be clear, that brief pause has no detrimental effect on the film’s narrative flow. I’m just a stickler for accuracy.

And, make no mistake: 1917 is a technical marvel, a thing to behold, something not to be missed, and absolutely best seen on the big screen. I truly have not been this impressed by production design and cinematography since Children of Men (2006), which was similarly jaw-dropping in its visual execution, if also far less plausible in futuristic concept, in contrast to this film’s uber-realistic historical one. I feel compelled also to mention the special effects. This is not a “special effects movie,” but the fact that you never think about visual effects while watching it, and yet there’s a couple hundred credits on its effects team, underscores how impressive it really is.

It takes a while even to notice the camera work. Somewhat in contrast to Birdman, this film is far more successful at not calling attention to the stunningly long takes. Quite a lot of the film goes by before it even begins to dawn on you, because you are so engrossed in what these two soldiers are doing, whether they are winding their way through trenches, crossing “no-man’s land,” or rushing over vast fields.

The cumulative technical achievements are so high with this movie that it’s easy to overlook the performances, which is too bad: Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay are both excellent, and they are unlikely to get the recognition they deserve beyond mentions in reviews like this one. The fact that you forget that they are even acting is testament to their skill. That said, there are brief appearances by Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Richard Madden, and even Flabag’s “hot priest” Andrew Scott, their varying levels of fame creating varying levels of distraction in a film where it’s really best if the actors are unrecognizable enough to disappear into their characters. That is the most minor of minor quibbles, though.

1917 is engrossing from the start, but the “how in the world did they do that?” moments don’t start until about halfway through the film. I found myself wondering, first of all, how massive the sets must have been, to accommodate these actors traversing such large distances in real time. Then there are two sequences, one a chase through a decimated French town and then into a river, the other a run across an attack over a battlefield (a glimpse of which is seen in the trailer), which are genuinely stunning.

And while the takes are objectively long either way, they could not possibly have actually been only two genuine takes, which makes the editing arguably the most impressive achievement. I can think of only one moment, when the camera follows the two soldiers into a trench tunnel and the screen goes dark for a split second, when I thought about how there could have been an easily imperceptible cut. Wherever else there are cuts in the film, effects work must have been incorporated—and seamlessly so.

The story is an incredibly simple one, already made clear in the trailer: Blake is informed that his brother is part of another company that is about to launch an attack on German forces that is actually a trap, and their attack must be called off. When they were told they had something like eight hours to get to their destination on foot, I immediately wondered how director (and co-writer) Sam Mendes was going to accommodate that expectation with the “single shot” concept: he easily took care of that with the moment when Schofield is knocked out for several hours. Schofield does hitch a ride on the back of a truck at one point, but for all of five minutes, so upon further reflection, crossing that expectation of distance in the space of two hours is clearly implausible, but 1917 is otherwise so astonishing and great that it’s easy to forgive. It’s still a movie!

And a fantastically suspenseful, compelling and often tense one, at that. Maybe once a decade a movie comes along that pushes the technical limits of filmmaking forward, without sacrificing the sanctity of storytelling. This is one of those movies.

A brief pause for reflection on a cinematic roller coster.

Overall: A-

UNCUT GEMS

Directing: B+
Acting: A-
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+

There’s a Venn diagram of basketball fans and cinema fans, maybe also Adam Sandler fans, who are really going to love Uncut Gems. This film, by Bennie Safdie and Josh Safdie, certainly found a unique niche: it’s about a jeweler with a serious gambling problem (Sandler), and also features Boston Celtics player Kevin Garnett in a key supporting part . . . as himself.

It may be that this movie just isn’t for me. I don’t even know what being a “power forward” means. Strangely, as time passes and I let it sink in, it becomes clearer to me how well constructed Uncut Gems really is. That doesn’t mean I have to be a huge fan of it. There’s almost too much tension, the cinematography is competent but too over-saturated for my taste, and there’s a lot of screaming.

That may be why Adam Sandler was perfect for this movie. That guy has been a professional screamer for decades, and I really never liked him. Except that, in the 2002 P.T. Anderson masterpiece Punch-Drunk Love, he proved that in the hands of the right director, Sandler actually can be an incredible dramatic actor. Does he just do one serious movie truly worthy of consideration within the span of each decade, or what?

He is indeed well used here. We meet Howard Ratner during a colonoscopy, of all things, after a prelude depicting the theft of gems in mines of Ethiopia. The opening titles are very cool, if a bit odd in the end: they depict a view of the universe within those gems, until it dissolves into the inner lining of Howard’s colon. From there, Howard spends the vast majority of the story getting himself into deeper and deeper shit, using money he should be using to pay standing debts to place even more gambling bets. This guy can’t help himself, not even after threatening goons hang him upside down out a high window.

Are you wondering how Kevin Garnett comes into play? Well, he ultimately is a sort of patron of Howard’s jewelry establishment, and he develops a superstitious attachment to the stone full of gems from Ethiopia, which Howard has procured through shady means and is convinced it is worth a lot more than it probably really is. I can imagine basketball fans, and particularly fans of Kevin Garnett, will regard this element of the story as a kick in the pants.

So much focus is put on basketball in play, because Howard places bets on it, that my own personal interest wanes. I might even go so far as to say that if basketball bores you, much of this movie will as well. On the other hand, the Safdie Brothers effectively transcend the whole basketball thing with this movie, because that is just part of the context, in this story about a man who cannot stop gambling, even in the face of personal ruin.

There are other things to love on this movie, such as the obviousness of Howard’s gambling problem, but no character ever discusses it directly, or says anything so obvious as “You have a problem.” Not even Howard’s wife (a nearly unrecognizable Idina Menzel), or his young mistress (Julia Fox). It is made clear that Howard and Dinah are preparing to tell the kids they will be separating. We can already see plainly why.

Sandler’s Jewish heritage has always been a key part of his persona, and it plays heavily here as well, with Howard being from a large, Jewish family. Judd Hirsch plays his father; Eric Bogosian is Howard’s brother-in-law (evidently husband to one of his sisters, I think), and also one of the men resorting to threats to procure gambling debts. In addition to Garnett, The Weeknd also plays himself, as a talented coke head, in a much smaller part. There is a scene in which he performs. I haven’t even gotten to LaKeith Stanfield, seen in last year’s Sorry to Bother You as well as this year’s Knives Out, in another key part as one of Kevin Garnett’s associates.

Which is to say, the acting is pretty great across the board in Uncut Gems. Even Kevin Garnett, in his feature film debut, holds his own. There’s something to be said for forging a new path in storytelling, and this movie certainly does that, which earns it my respect. The same goes for how it ends, which is somehow both a shock and totally unsurprising. I have to commend a movie that manages to impress me even after it spends far more time on basketball play than I am ever interested in watching.

Insert “diamond in the rough” metaphor here.

Overall: B+

Cinema 2019: Best & Worst

Below are the ten most satisfying and memorable films I saw in 2019: 10. Little Women A-

As literary adaptations go, this one is about as close to perfect as you can hope for. Many such adaptations work far better as TV series, giving the much more expansive stories the space to breathe, and Little Women, in the right hands, would likely have been no excepton. If it must be a feature film, however, you really can't do any better than putting it in Greta Gerwig's assured hands, with which she seamlessly integrates author Louisa May Alcott's own life, and known wishes for her own book. Given how autobiographical the book was, this is perfectly appropriate, and makes for sly storytelling with unique finesse, offering a picture of not just life for women in the midnineteenth century, but of both how far they have come and how little things have changed. It doesn't hurt that the perfectly cast performances are all delightful.

What I said then: Greta Gerwig’s Little Women is a rich text unto itself, a delightful time capsule of 2019 and how we regard ourselves in the context of looking back at 1869. It has layers that are all its own, ripe for discovery. 9. Giant Little Ones A-

A film of subtle and deceptive simplicity which gradually reveals itself to have great impact. Giant Little Ones is that rare "queer film" that never bothers to define its queerness: it's just about the ramifications of a minor sex act between two teenage boys who have been best friends since they were little, how it gets turned into rumor among their peers, and what that means for them, and for us as viewers. Who initiated things becomes a key plot point tied inextricably with true friendship in the fact of blame and misinformation, rendering this that rare film that depicts teenagers with an innate understanding of integrity.

What I said then: The greatness of Giant Little Ones is in its concurrent uniqueness and absolute relatability to contemporary audiences. This movie contains no cliché moments, no emotional “coming out” scenes; in fact, it’s relatively pointed in its refusal to define any character’s sexuality. Within the dialogue comes this great pearl of wisdom: “It sounds like you had a sexual experience with someone you really loved. It may be as simple as that.”
8. Ford v Ferrari A-

Trust me, I can relate to the many of you when you look at this and think, A movie about race car driving? Really? Yes, really! I was skeptical at first as well, and was convinced to give it a try after its shockingly high critical praise, and still this movie exceeded my expectations. It's about more than just racing, but it must be said that the racing sequences are still a big reason to see it: expertly shot and edited, always thrilling to watch. Even at 152 minutes in length, this thoroughly entertaining movie just flies by, thanks inlarge part to electric performances by both Matt Damon and Christian Bale. It should also be noted that, witout exception, everyone who saw this movie after I told them they should has told me I was right. Ford v Ferrari has done all right at the box office but should have been a smash: it's the truly rare movie that I can happily recommend to absolutely anyone who asks what good movies I have seen lately, regardless of sociopolitical background. This is old-school storytelling with a modern lens (literally: it's so well shot!), this year's one movie that really is for everyone.

What I said then: The extraordinary thing about Ford v Ferrari is that I really have nothing to criticize it for. It may not quite be a masterpiece of cinema, but it sure does hold up as near-perfect movie entertainment. 7. Wild Rose A-

This might be the most underrated, criminally ignored movie of the year. What's wrong with you people, get your shit together! If you like movies about singers, you need to drop everything and watch this one. Even if, like me, you're not super into country music. This unparalleled story of a woman who travels from her native Glasgow to pursue her dream of being a country singer in Nashville will lift your spirits, with its music as well as its performances, like you would never expect.

What I said then: This movie is better than Rocketman, certainly better than Bohemian Rhapsody, arguably even better than A Star Is Born. The travesty is that Wild Rose flies under the radar compared to those films — so far under the radar, in fact, in effect there is no radar at all. And this one is better executed, more deeply emotionally affecting, than all three of those others put together. 6. Luce A-

A counterpoint to Ford v Ferrari, I suppose: Luce is dense, complicated, and difficult, posing questions with no easy answers. If you're looking for a challenge as someone with intellectual curiosity, look no further than this film, about an Eritrean-born high school student (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) adopted by a white couple (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) who may or may not be making veiled threats against his history teach (Octavia Spencer). It plays largely like a mystery, and one that will creep under your skin, keeping you thinking for some time,    

What I said then: It’s a provocative exploration of the ways life is unavoidably complicated, often unfair in surprising ways, and even the smartest people can be tragic victims of circumstance. And, sometimes, who the victims even are, exactly, is open for debate. 5. The Reports on Sarah and Saleem A-

Films that tap into the prejudices across the divide between Israel and Palestine are nothing new, but this movie is still something different. The man and woman of the title are of each natuonality, both married but having a secret affair with each other, and it snowballs thanks to a lie on a government report—hence the title—that has nothing to do with their affair, but which the suspicious Israelis interpret to be a threat. Yhe Reports on Sarah and Saleem is thus a masterfully constructed story, with all of its many pieces clicking into place with icreasingly satisfying precision.

What I said then: I would argue The Reports on Sarah and Saleem has a far more feminist bent to it than you’re ever likely to find in any other story like this. The two women here are the strongest characters, with the most dimension. Best of all, [director] Muayad Alayan does not pass judgment on any of these characters, the women or the men — one of each potentially seen, depending on the point of view of the observer, as a victim and as a criminal. 4. Apollo 11 A

2019 has turned out to be a banner year for phenomenal documentary films—the genera accounts for three of the top four movies I saw this year. Apollo 11 was the first of them that I saw, and it is astonishing on ever level: the kind of archival foodtage found that had never been seen before, and the achievement itself, having been in a pre-digital, analog world. Fifty years on, it's easy to take all this for granted, but Apollo 11 illustrates how the event impacted and changed the world in a way unlike anything else I had ever seen. Just imagine any time you felt like your mind was being blown, and then put yourself in the shoes of anyone alive on the planet on July 20, 1969. This film comes the closest to doing that for you, and even if you were already in awe of the very idea of what they did, it will still change your perspective.

What I said then: Todd Douglas Miller, who also did the editing, lets all the footage simply speak for itself. It’s a document of a particular moment in time, with unparalleled historic import, condensed down to 93 minutes. There is not a single moment wasted, not a lull to be found. This jaw-dropping feat of humanity is enough on its own to be mesmerizing from beginning to end — with particularly thrilling moments, of course: the successful rocket launch; the literal landing on the moon; the safe return to Earth eight days later. 3. Toni Morrison: The Pieces I Am A

It may be cliché to call any person a legend, but Tori Morrison earns the title—and what tragic irony that I thought of her as a living legend when I watched this film in July, and then she passed away three weeks later. Thankully, Morrison lives on in her immportal works of vial American literature. But also, she lives on in this truly awe-inspiring, revelatory documentary about her and her life, told largely in her own words, both in recent interviews for this film and in archival interviews spanning decades. This film will make you wish you could have known her, and what greater accomplishment is there than that?

What I said then: Morrison, having sat down for multiple long interviews for this film, proves to be a dynamic screen presence. She only has to sit and speak, and she commands attention, all confidence, sincerity and warmth in equal measure, someone quick to express joy while at the same time capable of tapping into deep wells of pain. This is a woman who lacks humility only because she doesn’t need it. There is no particular arrogance in her demeanor; she simply sits comfortably in the knowledge of her skill and talent. 2. The Third Wife A

The one and only narrative feature film I saw this year that, onscreen at least, I would call flawless: the writing, the acting, the editing, the cinematography, the direction: not one false move among them. You may have noticed I tend to be most impressed by well-ecuted stories with a feminist bent, and The Third Wife is no exception, about a 14-year-old married off to a wealthy landowner in 19th century rural Vietnam. It is very specific to a time and place, one I had never seen represented onscreen before, and yet, it still shows that when it comes to patriarchy, it's been the same shit the world over throughout history. The casting of a 13-year-old actor who French kisses one of the other two wives is problematic at best, and I do feel I would be remiss in not mentioning it. That said, when judging all that ended up within every frame of this film, no other narrative feature film in 2019 matches it in its quiet, provocative quality.

What I said then: I have no idea how much leeway to give cultural differences here. If nothing else, there is some comfort in the director having been a woman, with a clear vision of the story she was telling and an intricate understanding of the sexual politics involved. How appropriate was Nguyen Phuong Tra My for this part, then? That’s hard to say. I’m choosing to separate that knowledge from the final product onscreen, which is sublime in its presentation. 1. Honeyland A

This movie is so amazing, and uniquely so, it holds the distinction of being the first year's best movie I have ever chosen that was a documentary. It's so amazing, in fact, such an impressive feat of technical cinematic achievement, I could tell you it was actually a narrative feature film and you would be none the wiser. The story is simple: a lone woman beekeeper in rural Macedonia, outside its capitol city of Skopje, has her livelihood threatened by a family who sets up nearby with their own beekeeping operation. Hatidze is so generous and pure of heart, she keeps offering advice on keeping their business sustainable, which they consistently ignore, long after she should have stopped. One of the many impressive things about this is how it's edited down to the perfect length of 90 minutes, from three years' worth of time spent on principal photography. The fimmakers were simply observers, recording a life, and a way of life, without conducting actual interviews. This is why it feels so much more like a narrative film than your typical documentay—because they had enough footage from which to fashion such a narrative. The georgeous cinematography and stunning scenery are added bonuses, making an indeiible story even better with its visual impact. It's movies like this that make me grateful cinema exists at all.

What I said then: Honeyland is a triumph of editing, of cinematography, of will, of perseverance, of humanity. Five Worst -- or the worst of those I saw 5. Captive State C

A grand "fake-out" sci-fi movie with so many plot holes they form a giant, gapig pit of tediousness. I'd try to explain both the premise and the plot, except that neiher makes sense. There are aliens. They've taken over all the major cities. This story is set in "occupied" Chicago. Everything else you learn about this incomprehensible movie brings more questions than answers, but you're so bored by the time the movie is over, you don't care what the answers are annyway.

What I said then: Is it possible half the people who saw this movie liked it on some level just because they have no taste? Or brains? 4. Little C

You can imagine the pitch meeting on this one: "An inverted 'black Big,' except now the protagonist is a girl!" Not even the reliably genial Issa Rae can save this total mess of a movie, which has no real understanding of what it's like to be a child. Or how to write a script that makes any sense. The strangest thing about this movie is that it's packed with great actors, who have no hope of saving this sinking ship of a movie. Inept at every turn, this is a movie that could have been clever and fun but just lands on dumb.

What I said then: Nothing in Little makes any sense. It has occasionally enjoyable moments, and surely plenty of people will enjoy it far more than I did. That doesn’t change how fundamentally dumb it is. 3. The Wandering Earth C-

The next time you think you might see a foreign film that also happens to be a disaster movie, don't do it! Okay, I suppose that's unfair; the 2015 Norwegian film The Wave was actually pretty good. The Wandering Earth, on the other hand, is basically China's answer to The Core crossed with Geostorm. Which is to say, this movie about moving the Earth to a new star system thanks to our sun dying out is a steaming pile of garbage.

What I said then: This movie ... has the distinction of being easily the stupidest thing I have watched in at least two years. 2. Godzilla: King of the Monsters C-

But then, Godzilla: King of the Monsters saw how terrible The Wandering Earth was and said, "Hold my beer." This one is a special effects extravaganza with such bad lighting, you can't decipher the incomprehensible chaos even on a visual level. This movie is so idiotic, it gives big, dumb blockbusters a bad name. I even knew this one would be shit before I even went to see it, so I suppose I have only myself to blame.

What I said then: This movie has not one redeeming quality. The closest it gets is that some parts of it are merely average — the acting, for instance — rather than terrible. 1. Cats C-

I gave three movies in 2019 a C-minus, those three being the worst movies I saw all year. What barely edges Cats out as the worst of them all is how many times I looked at the screen in utter bafflement and thought to myself, What the fuck? Strangely, that is the only emotion Cats managed to elicit out of me, which is honestly its greatest sin: it may have neen resentment and anger, but at least The Wandering Earth and Godzilla: King of the Monsters actually made me feel something. Cats is so much more dull and boring than anything this nightmarish in appearance should even be capable of being. The bizarre visuals of Ken-Doll-crotch humanoid cats with CGI fur is the only thing that will keep you awake.

What I said then: This is ... the stuff of nightmares, the stuff that makes you imagine a bad trip after taking acid. Is that what the effects team did before they set about their work?
Complete 2019 film log: 1. 1/4 Shoplifters B
2. 1/5 Mary Poppins Returns B (2nd viewing)
3. 1/6 Mary, Queen of Scots B
4. 1/8 Ben Is Back B
5. 1/14 Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse A- (2nd viewing)
6. 1/19 Destroyer B
7. 1/21 Cold War B+
8. 1/26 Stan & Ollie B
9. 2/1 They Shall Not Grow Old B+
10. 2/7 What Men Want B-
11. 2/9 The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part B
12. 2/12 Capernaum B+
13. 2/14 Isn't It Romantic B
14. 2/15 2019 Oscar Nominated Shorts: Animation B
15. 2/17 2019 Oscar Nominated Shorts: Live Action B
16. 2/19 2019 Oscar Nominated Shorts: Documentary B+
17. 2/25 Arctic B+
18. 2/27 Fighting with My Family B+
19. 3/3 The Wandering Earth C-
20. 3/5 Sharkwater Extinction B
21. 3/12 Captain Marvel B
22. 3/13 Apollo 11 A
23. 3/16 Captain Marvel B (2nd viewing)
24. 3/18 Giant Little Ones A-
25. 3/20 Captive State C
26. 3/22 Us B+
27. 3/24 Gloria Bell B+
28. 3/31 Dumbo B-
29. 4/2 Hotel Mumbai B+
30. 4/6 Shazam! B
31. 4/15 Amazing Grace B+
32. 4/17 Little C
33. 4/18 Penguins B+
34. 4/23 High Life C+
35. 4/25 Hail Satan? B
36. 5/4 Long Shot B
37. 5/6 Her Smell B
38. 5/8 Avengers: Endgame C+
39. 5/17 Good Kisser B+ *
40. 5/17 Pokémon Detective Pikachu B
41. 5/19 Pachamama B+ *
42. 5/21 John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum B
43. 5/23 Banana Split B+ *
44. 5/24 Trixie Mattel: Moving Parts B+ *
45. 5/25 Enormous: The Gorge Story B *
46. 5/27 Booksmart B+
47. 6/4 Troop Zero B *
48. 6/5 The Long Haul: The Story of the Buckaroos B+ *
49. 6/8 Rocketman B+
50. 6/11 Godzilla: King of the Monsters C-
51. 6/13 Late Night B+
52. 6/20 Toy Story 4 B+
53. 6/23 The Last Black Man in San Francisco A-
54. 7/6 Midsommar B+
55. 7/10 Yesterday B-
56. 7/13 Wild Rose A-
57. 7/14 Halston B-
58. 7/15 Toni Morrison: The Pieces I Am A
59. 7/19 The Farewell B+
60. 7/21 Diamantino C+
61. 7/23 The Lion King A-
62. 7/25 Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood B
63. 7/27 The Third Wife A
64. 7/28 Sword of Trust B+
65. 7/31 Kathy Griffin: A Hell of a Story B-
66. 8/6 Crawl B+
67. 8/10 The Kitchen B-
68. 8/14 The Reports on Sarah and Saleem A-
69. 8/17 Where'd You Go, Burnadette B-
70. 8/20 Ready or Not B+
71. 8/21 Honeyland A
72. 8/28 Luce A-
73. 8/29 Mike Wallace Is Here B
74. 9/1 The Nightingale B+
75. 9/2 One Child Nation B
76. 9/5 Blinded by the Light B+
77. 9/9 Brittany Runs a Marathon A-
78. 9/11 Tigers Are Not Afraid B+
79. 9/15 Hustlers B+
80. 9/17 Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice B+
81. 9/18 Downton Abbey B **
82. 9/19 Raise Hell: The Life and Times of Molly Ivins B+
83. 9/22 Ad Astra B
84. 9/25 Official Secrets B+
85. 9/27 Judy B+
86. 9/28 Monos B
87. 10/4 Joker C+
88. 10/5 Chained for Life B-
89. 10/9 Ms. Purple B-
90. 10/11 Lucy in the Sky B-
91. 10/16 The Addams Family C+
92. 10/17 Where's My Roy Cohn? B+
93. 10/19 Dolemite Is My Name B
94. 10/24 Zombieland: Double Tap B-
95. 10/25 Parasite B+
96. 10/29 The Lighthouse B+
97. 11/3 Terminator: Dark Fate B
98. 11/5 Jojo Rabbit B
99. 11/7 Harriet B
100. 11/9 Pain and Glory B+
101. 11/11 Last Christmas B-
102. 11/15 The Irishman B
103. 11/16 Ford v Ferrari A-
104. 11/17 The Woman Who Loves Giraffes B
105. 11/18 The Good Liar B
106. 11/24 A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood A-
107. 11/27 Knives Out B+
108. 11/28 Waves B+
109. 11/30 Honey Boy B+
110. 12/1 Frozen II B+
111. 12/2 Queen & Slim B
112. 12/11 Marriage Story A-
113. 12/12 Dark Waters B
114. 12/19 Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker B
115. 12/20 Cats C-
116. 12/21 Bombshell B+
117. 12/26 Little Women A-
118. 12/28 A Hidden Life B
119. 12/29 Uncut Gems B+ * SIFF festival screening
** Advanced screening

A HIDDEN LIFE

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B-

You can always tell when you’re watching a Terrence Malick film. Whether it’s his take on Pocahontas in The New World (2005) or the mysterious link between evolution and 1950s parenthood in the baffling Tree of Life (2011), wildly different types of stories are always told in the same visual style: sweeping camera movements within randomly cut shots. They may all be different stories, but it’s always Malick’s world.

A Hidden Life is unusually straightforward storytelling for Terrence Malick, as it happens. Even with the standard sorts of editing and cinematography, the story of passive resistance by one Austrian farmer named Franz Jäggerstätter (August Diehl) during World War II is easy to follow. It’s also long, also typical of Malick’s films: here 174 minutes. That I never found myself bored to sleep is a minor miracle, although I can easily imagine that happening to other viewers. There’s a lot of time spent just observing Franz and his wife, Fani (Valerie Pachner), living their simple live as small village farmers in the Austrian mountains.

That setting is what makes a whole lot of A Hidden Life very pretty to look at. Those mountain peaks and grassy fields make for a nice backdrop as Franz, after briefly training for German military service, comes to the realization that supporting Hitler’s regime is not the right thing to do. Franz has probably fewer lines than any other character, as he spends a lot of time stoically bearing the brunt of judgment, ridicule and even screaming, first by the others in his village, and then by the keepers at the prison he is taken to. It does lend greater impact to the few things he does say, such as, “I can’t do what I believe is wrong.”

I felt largely ambivalent about Franz’s martyrdom, to be honest. In another scene, as Franz continues to refuse to sign a paper that declares loyalty to Hitler, he is told, “God doesn’t care what you say, only what’s in your heart!” It seemed like a reasonable argument to me, at least from the point of view of a believer. I also wondered how this movie might come across differently to atheists (like myself) as opposed to the faithful. Many people who cross Franz’s path, from townspeople to soldiers at his prison, tell him his resistance has no bearing on the outcome of the war, or on the state of the world. That may be true in the immediate term, but arguably not on the long run. He clearly inspired plenty, considering he was a real man and we’re watching a movie about him 76 years after he lived.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but wonder: Why not just tell these people what they want to hear? A Hidden Life clearly wants us to ask ourselves this question: what would you do in his position? Would you stand firm until the bitter end? I’m not sure I would, and neither am I sure that would be a shameful thing. Refusing to serve in the army is one thing; that I find far more understandable and do feel I would be much more likely to refuse as well. But to refuse to sign a document, or else face death? It’s just a sheet of paper, with only the meaning you ascribe to it. As many of the people around him also pointed out, this would not have only gotten himself out of trouble. It would have prevented his wife and three children from becoming pariahs in their village as well.

That is not to say such people are deserving any defense themselves, although Franz himself might say so: when asked by one general, “Do you judge me?” he answers no. Franz seems to have real empathy and understanding as to how and why some people do and say the things they do. He is also torn and worried about the state of his country and the notion of people he thought were friends calling him “a traitor” to his race.

A Hidden Life has clear relevance to the state of our world today, with the oft-repeated refrain of what we might tell our grandchildren we did ourselves, in the face of horrible actions on the part of national leadership. Are we all complicit? and to what extent? This movie does not at all go out of its way to underline this analogy, but it’s still plainly there to see. Franz is at one point told, “You have blood on your hands,” and that may also be true, to the extent that it is true of all of us.

Terrence Malick is posing questions to us here in the form of a three-hour movie, and they are compelling, albeit of varying severity depending on your point of view. I do wish Franz actually spoke more often. Over and over he is asked direct questions, by his friends, by his wife, by the authorities, and he will just stand or star in silence. It seems unlikely Franz Jäggerstätter was quite like that in real life. But, for the purposes of this movie, he stoically endures increasing levels of abuse. It is certainly for a just cause, but another question might ask is whether a just cause is also a worthy cause. A Hidden Life is a meticulously executed film that perhaps has no answer to that question.

Quiet resistance never looked so beautiful.

Overall: B

LITTLE WOMEN

Directing: A-
Acting: A-
Writing: A-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+

It’s too soon to tell for sure, but it’s easy to imagine that, eventually, the 2019 adaptation of Little Women will be regarded as Greta Gerwig’s defining work. Just as classic literature—such as, of course, Louisa May Alcott’s original Little Women—is studied in the context of their time, and what coded messages might have been inserted into the text by the author, the same might very well be done to this film in coming years and decades. Because, unlike the many, many adaptations that have come before it, Gerwig studied the life and time of the book’s author, and found subtle ways in which to integrate such details into the story, in some cases even using lines from Alcott’s personal letters for dialogue. Given that Little Women was largely autobiographical, this approach is a natural fit, and this film is all the better for it, a worthy take for the 21st century.

You’d think that after six previous film adaptations (four of those after the silent era; one of them a misguided re-telling with the setting switched to current day, so “only” three particularly worthy of consideration), there would be no new way of looking at it. You would be wrong, especially given that it’s been 25 years since the last proper adaptation was made into film. (This doesn’t even include the many television and stage adaptations.)

I must confess, I have never read the novel. Perhaps I should. The story endures more than 150 years after first publication, and the book, never having been out of print, has sold nearly 2 million copies in that time. I have a vague sense of once, long ago, trying to watch the 1994 version starring Winona Ryder and Christian Bale, long considered the definitive modern adaptation, and finding it difficult to understand the point of the story. Maybe I was just too young. This time, due likely to both being older and being in tune to Greta Gerwig’s sensibilities, I am charmed and delighted by it.

Even though this is technically a period piece, in Gerwig’s hands, it doesn’t feel like one. It exists in a very casual, lived-in universe where people use period-specific diction but also act like regular humans of any time. In several scenes, the four March sisters are talking over each other, making for a vaguely Altman-esque effect.

The performances are fantastic. Saoirse Ronan, reportedly having stated plainly to Gerwig that she would be playing the part of Jo because it was just meant to be, appears to have been correct. Emma Watson is both understated and nuanced as Meg, the eldest sister. Florence Pugh (Lady Macbeth, MidSommar) continues her stunning streak of roles cementing her as one of the most dynamic actors of her generation, here imbuing a heretofore unseen humanity to Amy, who is usually a character offered for viewers to hate. Relative newcomer Eliza Scanlen (seen last year as Amma in HBO’s Sharp Objects) rounds out the four sisters, having possible the least meaty material but still giving the girl who gets sick a certain dignity.

All that said, I suppose there’s a certain irony to all four of the actors playing the March sisters in this very American story being Irish, British, or Australian. Every one of them is affecting an American accent. They all do it very convincingly. At least we get a scene stealing Meryl Steep as Aunt March; Bob Odenkirk in a limited presence as Mr. March, who most of the time is off serving in the Civil War; Chris Cooper as the neighbor Mr. Laurence; Tracy Letts as publisher Mr. Dashwood; and Laura Dern as Marmee March, although Dern mostly filling out backgrounds is a slight disappointment.

We do get native New Yorker Timothée Chalamet in the key role of Laurie, and he is a scrumptious treat. Just as he had in Gerwig’s previous movie, the fantastic Lady Bird, he has onscreen chemistry with Saoirse Ronan both unique and irresistible.

By all accounts, Gerwig manages to pack in more from the book than previous film adaptations, which is a bit of a double edged sword. This Little Women is well edited, all things considered—particularly considering the new approach of telling the story in flashbacks rather than the traditionally linear presentation—and yet, even at 134 minutes, it can feel a little rushed. Some have complained about the flahback structure, saying the use of all the same women to portray characters seven years apart, between their teens and their twenties, makes it at times difficult to follow. I went in knowing this might be an issue, and so I paid close attention—and then had no problem whatsoever. I guess that’s the trick, then: just pay attention!

Little Women is indeed the simple story of four young women finding their place in the world, and Greta adds a lot of speudo-meta, modern flourishes, lots of commentary on how important money was to a woman’s livelihood, and how not so very long ago the only way for them to get wealth was to marry into it. These elements are integrated into the narrative with finesse, at least most of the time; in a couple of instances, it comes through in an almost distractingly expository fashion.

Maybe one day one of the aforementioned students studying this film will single out a monologue about the importance of marrying into money and say, “That’s a little obvious.” But that’s not the point. The point is, how easy it is to imagine this film being given not just critical or commercial, but academic consideration. Greta Gerwig’s Little Women is a rich text unto itself, a delightful time capsule of 2019 and how we regard ourselves in the context of looking back at 1869. It has layers that are all its own, ripe for discovery.

Just look at that, it’ll take a century and a half to get us half as far as we want to go!

Overall: A-

BOMBSHELL

Directing: B+
Acting: A-
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+

“Some people are saying” . . . that Bombshell doesn’t quite let former FOX News anchors Gretchen Carlson or Megyn Kelly “off the hook” for the broader structure of misinformation and oppressive propaganda they supported by ever having worked at the network to begin with. Having seen the film, I’m not sure where that idea comes from; to a person, the women shown to have been sexually harassed by Roger Ailes are depicted as entirely sympathetic characters, even though there is plenty of reason to feel contempt for them regardless of how they were legitimately mistreated by the system they helped prop up for years.

That said, upon further reflection, I’m not sure that angle has any direct relevance to the telling of this particular story. The moral standing of these women’s politics is not what Bombshell is about, and if director Jay Roach (The Campaign, Trumbo) and writer Charles Randolph (The Big Short) had made this more about that, it would have distracted from the issue at hand, which is what a vile pig of a man Roger Ailes was, and the women who brought him down for it.

Something else entirely about this movie comes rather close to being its own distraction: how convincingly the actors look like a lot of the real-life people they portray. Of all the principal players, only Margot Robbie plays a composite character, named Kayla; all the others are real people, from John Lithgow as Roger Ailes, to several bit parts like Malcolm McDowell as Rupert Murdoch, Richard Kind as Rudi Jiuliani, Kevin Dorff as Bill O’Reilly, Spencer Garrett as Sean Hannity, Tony Plana as Geraldo Rivera. Some of these appearances feel like stunts; even a couple of times—though certainly not with all of them—even I had to take a second to convince myself I wasn’t actually looking at the real person. Even Charlize Theron is so convincingly transformed as Megyn Kelly, with a deft combination of makeup and prosthetics, the movie begins with a title card assuring us that none of the real people being portrayed are ever actually seen onscreen unless in archival footage.

But, I got past any such distractions pretty quickly. Bombshell is so well acted, and for the most part well edited, that it’s surprisingly entertaining from the start, sometimes even funny, before it movies into the fairly frank revelations of what Roger Ailes asked these women to do for him in his office. It seems appropriate, then, for Kayla to be a composite character, as she is the only one with a dedicated scene showing the first step in Ailes’s harassing tactics. He first asks her to “give him a twirl,” and then asks her to lift her skirt up so he can see her legs, higher and higher until her underwear is showing. This way, at least, we’re not watching any single real-life woman going through this. It’s still a scene that is as awkward as it is gross, eliciting a very specific kind of squirming, horrified discomfort. And that is precisely the point, as is the fact that in this context, these women deserve protection and they deserve justice, regardless of what their politics are or who they work for.

In the beginning scenes, Bombshell is slightly too preoccupied with a snappy presentation, and skates through a few plot points a bit too quickly. The whole business with then-candidate Donald Trump saying Megyn Kelly was “blood coming out of her wherever” is addressed directly, but also kind of glossed over. It’s fairly quickly contextualized as background in early difficulties between Kelly and her employer, as Ailes is initially presented as coming to her defense. Much of Bombshell is about Megyn Kelly trying to decide whether she should come forward at all, after fighting a losing battle over the fallout from her rift with Trump. But, she reveals to her own staff that she had been harassed by Ailes herself roughly a decade before, and she makes this revelation in the wake of Gretchen Carlson’s meticulously planned lawsuit against him in the wake of being fired without cause.

A lot of comparisons have been made between Bombshell and last year’s Vice, which had similarly impressive physical transformations to depict real-life people. The key difference, though, is that Vice made the most vile person in that story—Dick Cheney—its protagonist, and none of its principal players were particularly sympathetic characters. For Bombshell to be truly comparable, it would have to have made Roger Ailes the protagonist. Ailes, as portrayed by John Lithgow with just the right amount of slimy creepiness, is appropriately relegated to the role of the villain. It’s the women’s story being told here, which is as it should be, Theron, Robbie, and Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson are all excellent as women who may all be perfectly deserving of criticism for other reasons, but not for their experiences with Roger Ailes.

Even all that is not entirely black and white, though, and Bombshell does address that, with one of the few scenes showing any of these three women actually interacting with one another. Kayla can’t understand why Megyn did not come forward sooner, which could have prevented her own as well as many other women’s experiences. Then again, as Megyn notes in another scene, “I’m damned for coming forward, or I’m damned for not doing it sooner.”

For a movie that distills a pretty vast and complex story down to 108 minutes, Bombshell succeeds remarkably well. It slightly falls victim to the limitations of the form, but it’s also in a medium that gets the widest audience (well, aside from cable news itself, perhaps). It’s a worthy story compellingly told, by turns entertaining (Kate McKinnon as a secret lesbian Democrat working at FOX News because she couldn’t get hired anywhere else, at the desk next to Kayla’s, was actually a nice touch, I thought) and deeply disturbing. This movie is realistic about what happens in real life, but lacks the deep cynicism of a movie like Vice, which is what makes it better. This one is imperfect but illuminating, and very much worth the time.

Allies with Ailes, until they’re not.

Overall: B+