FIRST COW

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

First Cow is worthy viewing, though it’s unfortunately not quite made for this moment in history. A slight irony, that, given it was made about a particular moment in history: 1820s Pacific Northwest—specifically, Oregon Territory. Two men, a baker nicknamed “Cookie” and a Chinese immigrant named King-Lu (John Magaro and Orion Lee) form an unlikely friendship, and then a dangerous business selling “oil cakes” made delicious by the theft of milk from the only milk cow in the Territory.

Hence, the film’s title: Cookie and King-Lu observe the arrival of this cow, originally shipped from California with a bull and a calf who both perished in the journey, and seize an opportunity. They routinely sneak under cover of night to milk the cow, leaving its owner, Chief Factor (Toby Jones), mystified as to why it seems to produce so little milk.

And, here is where we get into why First Cow would be better viewed on a big screen in a theater, which unfortunately remains an indefinite impossibility for most of us: its many scenes shot at night, with the barest minimum of lighting. Should you watch this streaming at home—and I would say it’s still worth it, especially for its currently rental price of $2.99 for Prime Members on Amazon—I recommend watching in a room that you can make very dark, or at least watch at night. I started this in late morning, and even with blinds drawn, the sun hitting them from the other side forced me to stand up at times and move closer to the TV screen so that I could make out the image.

That said, even on its own terms, First Cow is not for everyone, mostly thanks to its very slow pacing. It’s easy to see how critical consensus on this film is incredibly high and average online viewer scores are much lower. And the story is so simple, there’s not even that much more to tell you, except perhaps that a modern-day prologue sequence makes perfectly clear what these two characters’ ultimate fates are. The final scene did not strike me as quite as ambiguous as some took it to be. It’s clear what happens to them, just not quite as clear how, but the how is far less relevant.

In the meantime, First Cow is much more of a meditation on friendship, and hardship, and how those things can relate to each other. There is no sex or romance in this movie, just the platonic relationship between these two men, who have both been to many places on a long life journey that has brought them together here. I do like how little telegraphing director Kelly Reichardt does in this movie, especially in terms of the disparate backgrounds. Not only are the two main characters originally from Maryland and China—for the time especially, a long, long way away from Oregon Territory in either case, just in opposite directions. There is also the Englishman Chief Factor (Toby Jones being simultaneously the most recognizable actor in this movie, and a great character actor who disappears into his roles), and the Native American house staff who waits on him.

Nothing about First Cow is “a statement,” but rather it’s all rather neutral observation, of a particular place and time. It may be slightly more interesting to those of us already from the region, but that has no bearing on how compelling the overall story might be to anyone. What is more likely to factor in its reception is how patient the viewer is. Reichardt is offering an environment to be absorbed, much more than a plot to propel forward. The story does pick up notably in the second half, almost as a reward for the patient. And even then, not a lot happens. You’ll want to make sure you’re not drowsy if you watch this movie.

It very much worked for me, at least. The performances are solid across the board, but then, Reichardt does not ask a lot of them. She still offers much on which to ruminate, especially the nature of friendship, as is made overtly clear with a quote she puts onscreen before the opening scene even begins. There’s something to be said for kindness as well, manifest by Cookie and King-Lu’s first meeting, and contrasted by Chief Factor’s stated philosophies. First Cow is quiet and contemplative, and in the event that’s what you’re in the mood for (a key factor), it could be just what the doctor ordered.

This movie is udderly pleasant.

Overall: B+

I'M THINKING OF ENDING THINGS

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

What a title for me to use as my return to reviewing movies after months of reviewing nothing. Five months since my last posted review (Onward); six and a half months since my review of any movie in theaters (The Photograph)—to call 2020 a strange year, in any and all contexts let alone the movie industry, is the understatement of the century. And, like Onward, I did not see I’m Thinking of Ending Things in a theater, which had previously been my strict criteria for writing and posting movie reviews here (that, and that it be in its original theatrical run). But, unlike Onward, I’m Thinking of Ending Things actually is playing in a theater . . . somewhere. I found showtimes for it at a Landmark Theater in Chicago.

But, I live in Seattle, as do most of my readers, or at least most of them live in the Seattle area. Washington State multiplexes remain closed; most independent movie theaters remain closed; I’m Thinking of Ending Things is far too obscure a movie to be playing at any of the drive-in theaters that are once again in vogue.

I’m Thinking of Ending Things is an extraordinarily odd movie, in more ways than one. The greatest irony of it may be that, even if it were playing in theaters, I would not tell a single person to rush out to see it there anyway. As it happens, it’s streaming on Netflix—which had been the plan all along. And of course, most of the time, I don’t bother with what I still consider basically “made for TV” movies that are streaming originals—unless! Unless, they get an Oscar-qualifying limited run at theaters. Think Roma (amazing), or The Irishman (fine, but overrated). If there were not a pandemic and the world were operating as normal right now, I’m Thinking of Ending Things would indeed have been at some movie theater accessible to me, however briefly, and I would have seen it, and written and posted a review. Hence, what you are reading right now.

And all that is just preamble to my telling you: I’m Thinking of Ending Things has something rather important in common with his 2008 film Synecdoche, New York. Which is to say, it’s really only for the die-hard Charlie Kaufman fan. It could be said that the writer-director has a cult following, but I don’t know that it’s a particularly huge one. I struggle to think of many people I know who would have the patience for this movie. I did, but that is because of my longstanding, hardcore fandom, and I come in with the mind of giving him the benefit of the doubt. That said, I had so many “huh?” moments in this movie that I am also wondering, am I starting to lose my patience with him? I gave Synecdoche, New York and A- in 2008; would I have done the same had it been released now? It’s hard to say. I should re-watch it.

Another curiosity: I’m Thinking of Ending Things has a 4:3 aspect ratio, which would fit right into a non-widescreen, standard television screen. That’s how it would be presented on a theater screen, at which I would have no doubt been forced to think about the choice, and how it feels expressly designed for television screens, and how it was made for Netflix to begin with. The thing is, even if I were to insist that everyone needs to see this movie (they don’t), I would still say that watching it streaming at home would be fine: this is not a film that commands large-screen attention.

Kaufman has a knack for claustrophobic narrative devices, after all. I’m Thinking of Ending Things boasts a very small cast, and maybe half the run time features only two: a young couple, only dating for six weeks, played by Jessie Buckley and Jesse Plemons. They are driving through a huge snowstorm to his parents’ house for dinner, and long stretches of the film are dedicated just to conversation between the couple as they drive in the car, both on their way there and on the way back.

I’d say the scenes at the farm house are the most compelling. The parents are played by Toni Collette and David Thewlis (the latter most recognizable as Professor Lupin in the Harry Potter series), and you can never go wrong with either of those actors. But, it’s not a Charlie Kaufman film unless things get abstract at best and off the rails at worst, and I’m Thinking of Ending Things straddles that line, getting so odd in the second half that I can’t decide if Kaufman has crossed that line, or has inexplicably skated so far away from it to allow for enough room to land some narrative triple axels. Very subtly at first, the narrative begins to play with time and, I suppose, “what ifs” in terms of the long term potential of new relationships started with misgivings or little resistance. And then, all of a sudden, you’re watching a naked old man walking down a high school hallway behind a talking cartoon pig.

I’m Thinking of Ending Things is clearly dense and layered with meaning, and it feels very much like more of its meaning can be gleaned from multiple viewings. And in the moment, I was compelled by it, although that moved quickly to confusion in the final few sequences, which are either total claptrap or just flew over my head. Which is to say, I did not hate this movie, and I even enjoyed it broadly speaking, but I did not finish it feeling any compulsion to re-watch it in order to better understand it. It’s a Rorschach kind of a movie, where it’s easy to imagine one person finding it brilliant at the same time another person finds it infuriatingly pretentious. I fall somewhere in between, very much unsure of how great I think it is, but loving the performers nonetheless. It would be fun to listen to cerebral conversations about it between people who are smarter than I am.

It’s a long ride.

Overall: B

ONWARD

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

Onward is a movie that makes me think of Pixar Animation Studios’ glory days . . . which we are not in.

It’s still a worthy watch, mind you. It’s reliably entertaining; I got a few really good laughs out of it; the voice talent is lively and engaging. It also has a truly odd premise, wrapped in a well-conceived and often beautifully rendered world. Fantasy creatures have evolved in a world where practical technology has somehow rendered magic outdated, but two teenage brothers find a magic spell that will bring their dad back for one day. Something goes wrong, and for most of the movie, said dad exists only as his bottom half: his feet and legs, up to the waist.

Uhh. Okay.

Pixar made a name for itself, back in the day, with a seamless combination of unparalleled heart and unique cleverness. Movies like Cars (2006) and later Brave (2012) indicated initial loose stitches in those seams, arguably saved in their own right largely on the strength of the studio’s foundational narrative structures. If I can offer what is still my favorite film studio a bit of a backhanded compliment, it may be that over time they began to offer diminishing returns—but at least the rate at which they have diminished has been slower than that of any other studio.

Pixar still doesn’t make duds. They just make some movies, now, that bring a possibly unfair disappointment because their earlier work was so spectacular. This is the problem, albeit a slight one, with Onward. It’s a good movie. But other animation studios regularly put out movies just as good as this, and Pixar is supposed to stand apart. They always used to anyway; they were reliably a cut above the rest. And they do still regularly put out films that remind us of that, from the near-perfect Inside Out (2015) to the deeply moving Coco (2017). It’s just that now, for every such movie, they also give us an arguably unnecessary Toy Story 4 (2019), an outright pointless Cars 3 (2017, the only Pixar movie I never even bothered to see) . . . or, a merely-good-enough Onward.

It just . . . feels more like Pixar has moved into the “cashing-in” phase of their existence. The movies remain a fun experience, but something like Onward, well, it’s not an instant classic. This is not one of the movies we’ll still be re-watching regularly fifteen or twenty years from now, not like Toy Story (1995) or Finding Nemo (2003). And yes, this is a ridiculously unfair bar to set for any of these movies. Blame Pixar themselves: for ten solid years, they spoiled us! Every movie they made was spectacular. Of course that’s not sustainable. Still, the more less-than-incredible movies they release, the more they tarnish their brand.

Much as I did enjoy Onward, I’m not even bummed I couldn’t see it in theaters. This is my first written movie review since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (my first review in a record—by far—seven weeks, because of a two-week vacation that preceded it), and I am only writing this one because of these extraordinary changes of circumstance, and knowing that if theaters were open right now, this movie would still be in theaters and I would indeed have seen it there. Studios have adapted and offered some of their first-run movies for streaming rental, but at prices I just cannot justify spending, when renting one movie now would cost me nearly as much as I was previously paying AMC Theaters to see up to 12 movies a month. The key difference with Onward is that Disney has made it available on their Disney+ streaming platform, which I am already subscribed to.

But this still changes the context of how I might recommend the movie to others. Would this have been worth seeing in theaters? For me, absolutely! For you? Hmm. Maybe. Is it worth watching at home if you already have a Disney+ account? There is no question: yes. It’s just not going to blow you away the way countless Pixar films that came before it have, and it’s still going to have far stiffer competition from the plethora of other streaming options out there that you quite easily might enjoy either as much or more.

I just wish Onward had something more novel to say, something that set it apart to a greater degree. In many ways it just feels like other, better Pixar movies that came before. It does have its share of clever gags, and I very much enjoyed the world of fantasy creatures living in a society much more like our own, right down to mobile phones with screens that can crack. The gang of fairy bikers cracked me up. On the other hand, the voice cast feels less like voices matched perfectly to characters than voices attached to famous names just gathered for the marquee: Chris Pratt and Tom Holland as the brothers; Julia Louis-Dreyfus as their mother; Octavia Spencer as “The Manticore.” Even the existence of Ali Wong and Lena Waithe as partnered cops feels like producers telegraphing the message “Look how progressive we’re being!” just because the latter’s character makes reference to her girlfriend. Can we just get a main character who happens to be queer in one of these movies already?

I’m probably being way more critical of this movie than I have any need to be. Your kids are going to delight in it, of that I am certain. But then, they will delight in nearly any animated feature. Pixar movies are meant to be more than that. Even acknowledging how moved I was by the relationship between the siblings—and a hilarious visual gag with the climactic cursed dragon-beast—there is a depth to Pixar’s emotional and thematic capabilities that is just missing here. Onward is not more than that. It’s just a couple hours of harmless, often clever fun. Normally I say that’s all you need, but once in a while you just want a little more, when you know how much greater the capabilities are.

Did I mention some parts of this movie are just plain corny?

Overall: B

THE PHOTOGRAPH

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

I can’t remember where I read that The Photograph was being called “The black Notebook,” but I feel compelled to dispel that comparison right out of the gate. Full disclosure, I never saw The Notebook—because it looked like a steaming turd of a movie to me. A treacly-sentimental romance, sure, and plenty of people go for that sort of thing, but it clearly wasn’t for me.

I might not have expected The Photograph to be for me either, but every once in a while a romance piques my interest. It makes a huge difference that this one stars Issa Rae and LaKeith Stanfield, in both cases demonstrating impressive range just by being in this movie. They also happen to have great chemistry, in this movie that is as sensual and sexy as it is romantic. The plot features flashbacks narrated by the writer of a letter detailing her own sad love story, and this couple is played by Chanté Adams and Y’lan Noel, with nearly the same level of sensuousness.

Issa Rae plays Mae, and LaKeith Stanfield is Michael. The letter writer, Christina, is Mae’s mother, having recently died of cancer. She left a letter for both Mae and for her father, asking her to read her own letter first. Michael is a journalist who meets Mae indirectly through Isaac (Rob Morgan), who was Christian’s long-ago lover, still living in New Orleans where Michael travels to interview him or a story. Michael is interested in photography, notices the good work in photographs displayed in Isaac’s house, including a rare photograph of the photographer herself: Christina. Ostensibly it’s the story behind this photograph that we are being told, although taken more literally, this movie might more accurately have been called The Letter. But, it’s not as easy to use a photo as a flashback device with voiceover narration.

This all sounds like the setup for a movie that is just as overly sentimental as any, maybe even a tearjerker. But that’s what sets The Photograph above other romances, as it is neither of those things. It does have both its sentimental and sad moments, but writer-director Stella Meghie never dwells on them unnecessarily, instead moving the story forward.

The tone of this film is slightly uneven in just a few scenes, but not nearly to the extent that some reviews might have you believe. Honestly, if you enjoy romances, you will enjoy this movie—and this one is better than most. I have very few nits to pick with it. Maybe just that, in the flashback scenes, Christina’s mother is constantly exasperated with her in ways that never quite seem justified. Young Isaac has no apparent prospects or ambition, and Christina’s mother therefore apparently finds him worthless since he can’t “take care of her.” Not interested in being taken care of, Christian buses off to New York to pursue a career in photography. Good for her! In the meantime, Isaac spends a lifetime regretting not following her there.

The Photograph explores a lot about how we fear becoming our parents, and Mae has grown up feeling largely neglected by her mother, and now has difficulty staying committed in relationships. Michael is similarly noncommittal in most relationships, but of course, meeting each other is what alters their relationship worldviews. All of this stuff is pretty minor, and what passes in this movie for “conflict” is a whole lot of not much. But, so what? This movie is not made for people looking for melodrama or histrionics; it’s for romantics, pure and simple. On that front, this movie more than delivers. The Photograph is a film full of love and affection, and people just trying to figure it out, trying to do better than those who went before them. It features lush cinematography—and photography—that has you leaving the theater feeling warm fuzzies, thinking about the comfort that comes with being in the arms of someone you love.

They’ll warm your heart as they warm each other’s.

Overall: B+

THE ASSISTANT

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

It’s so easy to imagine what might be said by people who would not like The Assistant—using language that reveals they just don’t get it. Consider its critics score on MetaCritic versus its user score, which is sadly predictable: 77 vs. 41. Granted, only three user reviews have been posted, because virtually no one is seeing this movie—which is too bad. How about over at Rotten Tomatoes, then? 89% among critics vs. 22% among viewers—this time among 119 “audience reviews.” Again, sadly predictable.

And sure, it’s true, it seems as though very few things actually happen in this movie. But that is precisely the point: the subtleties with which toxic masculinity manifests itself, particularly in American corporate environments. Audiences who aren’t seeing it are simply not paying attention, and thereby serve largely as proof of the point.

I’ll admit, it took a while for me to come around on this movie as well. Writer-director Kitty Green, here offering her first feature film that is not a documentary, presents a single workday in the life of Jane (Juia Garner), a very hardworking young woman who commutes from Astoria into Manhattan every day to work for a talent agency executive. And Green takes a novel approach, keeping the perspective on Jane at all times, and never even showing us the executive for whom she works.

We see plenty of the men who work under him, though—and above Jane—and the myriad ways they take Jane for granted or patronize her. Not one male character is exempt, but this is only something that registers to the viewer when keenly observed. To a large degree, they can’t necessarily even be blamed for their nuanced behaviors. The other two assistants who work at desks near Jane, both young men, perhaps don’t even realize the broad picture in this context. They probably mentally pat themselves on the back for “assisting” Jane in drafting apology emails to the executive for whom they all work—with no direct regard for the vile behaviors they are all tolerating on the part of that man.

n one fairly early shot, Jane is in her boss’s empty office, scrubbing the upholstery on the couch clean. It’s pretty easy to guess what she is cleaning, but it becomes much more explicit when a bunch of workers are later in there waiting for the boss to arrive and one of them says, “Don’t ever sit there.”

In other words, Jane is suffering countless subtle indignities which, taken individually, appear to anyone else like nothing. When a new young assistant is hired and it looks very much like the boss is taking advantage of her, even though it can’t be proven, Jane sees a man in HR who is very gracious at first, and then asks her why she seems intent on taking the huge opportunity of this job “and throwing it away on this bullshit.”

Even though The Assistant clocks in at an unusually brief 87 minutes, it really takes its time to get here. We see her doing a lot of mundane things, turning on all the lights when she is first in the office, making copies, even washing dishes in the staff kitchen—where other office workers absent-mindedly leave their own dishes for her to wash. This movie has a real “boiling frog” aspect to it, for both Jane and for the audience. There is something truly gross about what Jane is going through, which only becomes clear so gradually it’s easy to lose sight of where and how it started.

And I keep coming back to viewers who don’t get it. A choice “audience review” reads, in part, “That sandwich-throwing incident would have been met by a chair flying through the air from me -- and many women I know, too.” Uh, sure it would. Because behavior like that is always tolerated in corporate offices, right? Too many people see a movie like this and convince themselves they would never tolerate being in a position in which they just can’t win. Most of them are wrong.

That said, The Assistant strongly suggests that maybe—maybe—Jane will get ahead eventually, and find some measure of success, so long as she falls in line with, and turns a blind eye to, a boss who has a voraciously sexual appetite and a nasty temper. But will she achieve the same level of success, or any success as quickly, as her male peers?

Mansplaining in action.

Overall: B+

PORTRAIT OF A LADY ON FIRE

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

Not much happens in Portrait of a Lady on Fire, and simultaneously, there’s a whole lot going on. This is the kind of movie that might not seem to be making that great of an impact while watching it, and then later, upon reflection, you find yourself thinking Hey, wait a minute—that movie was excellent.

As such, however, this film is clearly not for everyone. It’s certainly not for audiences who just want to be entertained by movies. This is a prime example of something that dramatically illustrates the difference between a “movie” and a “film.” This is, unequivocally, the latter. It’s tailor-made to be studied, to be admired by intellectuals, and sure, yes, maybe film snobs.

In the midst of watching this film, I occasionally wondered what all the critical fuss has been about. Now that some time has allowed it to sink in, I find myself wondering if maybe it’s a masterpiece. I would bet this film rewards repeat viewings.

And just objectively speaking, for anyone with an open mind, there is a lot to love here. Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a story about women, performed by women, written and directed by a woman: Céline Sciamma. You can probably count on one hand the number of lines spoken by male actors, whose collective screen time clocks in at probably less than five minutes. And the specific context of its late-eighteenth-century setting allows for the story to be surprisingly uncomplicated.

There is something essentially pure in the romance between Marianne (Noémie Merlant), a painter, and Héloise (Adèle Haenel), the young woman whose portrait Marianne has been sent to paint. It takes roughly half the film for the romance even to reveal itself, and it comes to the characters themselves as a surprise. Until then, because Héloise is difficult and refuses to sit still for a portrait due to her resentment over being betrothed to a man not of her choosing, Marianne is asked just to give Héloise company, observe her, and paint her portrait in secret.

And then, once these young women realize their attraction to each other, there is no hand-wringing about it. They both know their station in life—as do both Héloise’s mother, La Comtesse (Valeria Gotino) and the servant, Sophie (Luàna Bajrami). In their different and subtle ways, all of these women find some way toward solidarity, rather than the expected or stereotypical rivalries. There is nothing typical about the storytelling here. Marianne and Héloise spend a lot of time helping Sophie end an unwanted pregnancy, and even that is approached in a frank and straightforward way.

It’s a beautiful thing, to see same-sex relationships—romantic, sexual or otherwise—presented with no complications of shame or guilt. Considering the time in which the story takes place, the historical subjugation of women still plays a part, but never in a heavy-handed way. Céline Sciamma isn’t exploring the dramatic consequences of oppression so much as the sadness of true love denied due to unfortunate circumstances. In that sense, Portrait of a Lady on Fire is he opposite of Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain from 15 years ago: that movie was a tragedy, and this is not. This is a romance, pure and simple, but layered with nuances revealed with each closer look.

Much has been made of how great the ending of this movie is. To use the word “great” is arguably misleading, and sets up an unrealistic expectation. I would say that it is eminently satisfying, clever in a way that endears you to the film in a way previously not considered. The very last sequence also uses music in a truly fantastic way, given that up to that point, there the film has no musical score, and features music only when a character plays an instrument a couple of times. But then an orchestral performance comes into play in the very last shot, and I cannot think of another movie in which a single stretch of music ties a story together so succinctly.

Catching Fire

Overall: A-

DOWNHILL

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

Valentine’s Day weekend was an odd choice for the release date of Downhill, which is, for the most part, the depiction of a relationship going downhill. I suppose it kind of has a happy ending in the end, which sets it apart from the critically acclaimed Swedish dramedy on which it’s based, Force Majeure (2014), which had much darker undertones to it. Somehow, Downhill, an American version of the same story starring Will Ferrell and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, is getting mixed reviews at best—and yet, I like this version better. Back in 2014, I wrote that Force Majeure was beautifully shot but glacially paced, and “this turns what could have been a tightly polished 90-minute movie into a rather slow 118-minute film.” Well, guess how long Downhill is? 86 minutes!

Admittedly, Downhill’s cinematographer Danny Cohen is not nearly as concerned with impactful visuals. The cinematography here, amongst beautiful snowy mountain vistas, rarely makes much of an impression. That’s the one thing I would say Force Majeure has on it. Otherwise, the much greater critical response to the original is perhaps indicative of the type of movie favored by film snobs, whereas Downhill appeals more to people who just enjoy a good, brisk, engaging movie that is by turns entertaining and thought provoking.

Most importantly, Downhill is extremely well cast, especially for American audiences. Ferrell and Louis-Dreyfus give very good performances and are totally believable as a longtime married couple with two young teenage children. And perhaps the most key element is the supporting performances of the boys, Juiian Grey (13) and Ammon Jacob Ford (also 13). It’s rare to find kids who give nuanced, believably unself-conscious and human performances in movies, and although their parts are much smaller, both these boys pull it off with impressive skill.

Now, Miranda Otto as the semi-nutty hostess at the hotel is a bit of an odd, left-field choice. Her character’s presence doesn’t quite break down this movie’s construction, but it comes within spitting distance—and it certainly doesn’t make it any better. At best, it is a distraction from the inciting incident of the entire story: a family of four on a ski vacation is terrorized by what turns out to have been a controlled avalanche during an outdoor patio lunch, and in the heat of the moment when they all think they are going to die, the dad just grabs his phone and makes a run for it, leaving his bewildered family behind.

This makes for a lot of subsequently awkward moments, and co-directors Nat Faxon and Jim Rash slowly but steadily dial up the tension. Pete has made his wife and children feel as though he doesn’t have what it takes to be there for them when it counts. And to be fair to the critics, the way Downhill ends is contrived in a fairly transparent—not to mention specifically Hollywood American—way, leaving things far less ambiguous than in the original story. It doesn’t alter the story that much, though, and it’s not enough to make the movie bad. In fact, to be sure, most American audiences will like the way things wrap up better here than they ever would have in the original Swedish film.

So that sort of turns this remake to the question of “art vs. commerce.” Critics might find the foreign film to be a masterpiece, but general audiences will prefer this Americanized version, with American comic icons as its two stars. Downhill is at times a bit cornier than it needs to be, and it could have some more emphasis on the philosophical questions it raises. But, you can also find the original provocative ideas if you look for them. Also, fun fact: the Norwegian actor Kristofre Hivju, who here appears as the safety department representative at the ski resort, is in both films.

Downhill is neither hilarious nor particularly dramatic, but it exists in a peculiar space in between, skirting the boundaries of amusement and discomfort. With different actors, it perhaps would not have worked. But all four of the actors who make up this family are what make this movie worth seeing.

Be careful how you react when you see what’s coming.

Overall: B+

GRETEL & HANSEL

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

I’m having a hard time deciding who this movie Gretel & Hansel is for, exactly. This is a relatively faithful adaptation of an old-school Brothers Grimm fairy tale, which means it is abundant with dark tones and creepy turns, and short on charms or thrills. It’s quite short, at a brisk 87 minutes, and while I would not say it’s ever dull, it has so little story to tell that it still has measured pacing.

Although the original fairy tale, Hansel and Gretel, was German, American director Osgood Perkins sets the story in some medieval time, its few characters speaking with an accent somewhere between American and . . . Irish? These people seem to exist somewhere outside of time, which is perhaps deliberate.

The original story had more about both these kids’ parents. At the beginning of Gretel & Hansel, we only ever see their mother, complaining about the lack of food, and ultimately demanding that her children leave and fend for themselves. Instead of having the kids close in age, Gretel is far older and therefore here shouldered with most of the responsibility: she is played by a 16-year-old Sophia Lillis; Hansel by 8-year-old Samuel Leakey, in his feature film debut. Both are serviceable in their parts, though Leakey, by virtue of his much younger age, is the one who manages to be adorable. Gretel’s incredibly short haircut seems odd but whatever, I’m willing to go with it.

The more exciting casting choice is that of Alice Krige as the witch, who awaits these children in a house in the middle of the woods they are wandering. Alas, the house is not made of gingerbread or sweets, or any kind of food, for that matter. It’s made of wood, what a disappointment! The kids peer through the window and find a table covered end to end with freshly cooked meats and breads and cakes.

Until this point, for maybe a third of the film’s run time, Gretel & Hansel is a sort of on-foot road movie, occasional surprises awaiting them along their journey. For instance, Charles Babalola as “The Hunter,” who dispatches a threatening . . . I don’t know, zombie? This movie has a tendency to go in directions that have little straightforward explanation.

And that aspect of it, I was kind of into. Osgood Perkins seems intent to establish and maintain a peculiarly creepy tone, rather than flesh out this story. This includes a couple appearances of pentagrams, and a vaguely sickening sequence involving entrails. It’s all scored with music that has a hint of melancholy eighties synthesizer, composed by Robin Coudert but only referred to in the credits as “Music by Rob.” According to IMDb, he has many projects on which he is credited in this manner. Maybe it’s aspirational: one day he hopes to be one-name famous, like Cher or Madonna. Well, he’s been at it for fifteen years, so I hope he’s not holding his breath.

There are moments of earthly beauty, as the dark magic takes greater hold over these children. In one shot, a tree outside the house becomes attracted to Gretel, and reaches down toward her with its branches, like a giant, outstretched arm, as she reaches out back to it. It’s an indelible image, and I found myself thinking, Okay, that’s cool. I wish this movie had more moments like it.

So, happy ending or no? Gretel & Hansel splits the difference, which is certainly respectable. This is that odd kind of outlier of a movie, which is unlike anything else, but still won’t likely linger in your memory long.

Don’t go in the house!

Overall: B

BIRDS OF PREY: AND THE FANTABULUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN

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

I should have known better. I did know better. I knew I was scraping the bottom of the barrel—or at least, I suppose, halfway to the bottom—by taking myself to see this Birds of Prey movie when I have long been over superhero movies as a rule, only going to see the rare one that came along which by all accounts truly stood apart. Quite definitively, Birds of Prey does not stand apart. It was just the option I had, though: February is always a sad month for movie releases, and this week there was literally nothing better in theaters for me to go see.

Virtually every single element of this movie’s production is a retreat of an idea already used in other movies, in many cases more than once. Once again I find myself longing for the days when we got one superhero / comic book movie every few years, as opposed to several such movies every year. It’s always just the same shit, on a different release date. The one thing that sets Birds of Prey apart in any way is that it has an ensemble cast that is nearly all women—which was also the one thing that triggered my “affirmative action” approach to movie-going: I want to support movies with this kind of casting, to be a part of the proof that movies by and about women really do have an audience.

Maybe I would have liked Birds of Prey better if it also had a female villain. That would have changed the impact of the story significantly. Instead, we get Ewan McGregor—one of my all-time favorite actors, as it happens—horribly miscast as Roman Sionis, a psycho night club owner whose calling card is cutting people’s faces off. McGregor just doesn’t work as a straight-up unrepentant villain, and he feels completely out of place in something like the DC universe. Also, every time he adopts an American accent for a part, his speech feels a just a little off. He’s a great actor but he’s not great at accents.

Also, Roman Sionis’s very existence poses a problem in this world set in Gotham City. Birds of Prey acknowledges the existence of “The Batman” (who is mentioned, by Harley Quinn, one time) and, of course, the Joker—with whom Harley Queen has recently broken up. Both that hero and that villain are larger-than-life names who exist in this universe, and yet we never see either one of them, and that makes little sense from a storytelling point of view. Harley Quin, the aggrieved ex, throws knives at the Joker’s face mounted on her apartment wall—except, it’s just a cartoon drawing of his face. In what universe would such a woman not use an actual photo of the guy? In this dumb universe, apparently.

And even though Birds of Prey acknowledges The Joker as the formidable villain of Gotham City, we’re expected to accept Roman Sionis as the primary villain of this story? Roman Soionis is the supervillain version of sloppy seconds. Why should any of us care? And why does everyone else in this story almost never even mention The Joker? This movie treats The Joker as untouchable, a villain that not even the police department feels is worth spending time and resources on. They regard Harley Quinn as a villain, and only when word gets out that her broken relationship with The Joker has dissipated her “immunity” do they even try going after her.

I have one particularly good thing to say about Birds of Prey, and that is Margot Robbie, as Harley Quinn. She is clearly having a blast as this giddily psychotic character. This film is also both directed by (Cathy Yan) and written by (Christina Hodson) women, which should lend it a perspective noticeably different from most movies we can see in theaters. I find myself wondering how many “studio notes” they were bombarded with in the making of this movie. But then, they were damned from the beginning as far as I’m concerned, being saddled with telling the story of characters who are by definition secondary, and remain so even in a movie that is supposed to be all their own.

I’ll say this much. If you just like superhero movies a general rule, then you will likely indeed enjoy Birds of Prey. It won’t be anyone’s favorite, but it will succeed at tiding you over until the next DC or Marvel movie comes along. I did laugh out loud a few times, and it has some fairly fun action sequences, although the climactic battle amidst a carnival fun house struck me as pretty tired. The so-called “Birds of Prey” of the title comprise several other women, played by Rosie Perez, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, and Ella Jay Basco. All of these characters, and even Chris Messina as Roman’s primary henchman, are all well cast, and their performances make Birds of Prey more fun than it would be otherwise.

I just wish a different actor had been playing a different character as the villain—but then, in a world where The Joker exists, any other character would be doomed to come up short. That, in the end, is really Birds of Prey’s fatal flaw.

Margot Robbie et al do their best in the fruitless effort at elevating the material.

Overall: C+

2020 Oscar Nominated Shorts: Documentary

Life Overtakes Me: B-
Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl): B
In the Absence: B+
Walk Run Cha-Cha: A-
St. Louis Superman: A- It never comes as any surprise that the cumulative run time of the Documentary Shorts is always the longest among all the Oscar-nominated shorts. This year they clock in at two hours and forty minutes, beginning with this 39-minute Swedish-American film Life Overtakes Me. Ironically, I struggled to stay awake during this film about children affliced with a phenomenon called "Resignation Syndrome," in which they become totally unresponsive, as if in a coma. To be fair, my response was not entirely the film's fault; I started the presentation eating a box of Cheddar Squares crackers with pimento cheese dip, and maybe it was that that just about put me into a coma. That said, the subject being objectively compelling notwithstanding, I would still argue this story would work better in print than as a film. It certainly deserves attention, this increasingly common response to trauma among refugee children facing the stress and threat of deportation back to their dangrous home coumtries. On the upside, you can watch it on its own whenever you want, on Netflix. Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl) is similarly quiet and subdued, and thus faced a challenge in waking me up, but at least the children here were not all in some version of a coma. On the contrary, this 39-minute British short filmed in Afghanistan details young girls being educated in Kabul, one of the most dangerous places in the world to be born a girl. Curiously, they are also taking lessons in skateboarding. I never quite gleaned why skateboarding, in particular, as an extracurricular activity, but it's certainly something that brings joy into what might otherwise easily be joyless lives. In the Absence, a 28-minute film from South Korea about a horribly botched 2014 rescue effort for a sinking ferry boat which ultimately resulted in the removal of the country's president, is arguably the most exciting of the bunch. It just starts off much more promising than it ends, as the opening moments feature clips from emergency phone calls and has a real-time feel to it. There are even select clips of dashcam footage and cell phone videos which are either heartbreaking, a wonder to behold, or both. Learning the totally incompetent moves were staged just to make it look like the authorities were doing anything successfully at all, just because their president was watching, made me wonder how that nation functions at all. Then, learning that this one incident resulted in the successful removal of said president, I felt a pang of jealousy. After that, with the revelation that certain things about it were still being kept secret under new national leadership, I realized, oh right—it's never that black and white. In any case, most of this film is quite gripping, although I was mystified that it never reveals why the ship sank in the first place. Turns out that's rather complicated, but still, it would have been nice to get some sense of the cause, as opposed to just the response, as both apparently were the result of a disastrous mix of incompetence, recklessness and carelessness. A lot of people died. Walk Run Cha-Cha, on the other hand, would qualify as the most delightful and sweet of these five documentary shorts, this one a far more uplifting twenty minutes. It follows the dancing hobby of elderly South Korean couple Chipaul and Millie Cao, who long ago escaped to Los Angeles from Communist Vietnam. We see a lot of footage of them in dancing classes, some at family gatherings, and in the end a very well-produced staging of the entire dance they've been working on. I was surprisingly moved by it, and although it likely has no real chance of winning the Oscar, as soon as I saw this, I kind of wished it did. But then I saw St. Louis Superman, a 28-minute film about 34-year-old Missouri State Representative Bruce Franks Jr., which is unfortunately the only one of these short documentaries that cannot currently be found in full online. This man, also a Ferguson activist whose own brother was killed in crossfire at the age of nine, as well as a battle rapper, is an inspiration, and once I finished watching this one, I decided this is the one that really deserves the win. Apparently a piling on of related challenges regarding violence in his community, and its effect on his mental health, resulted in Franks choosing to resign, but that should not discount the achievements he had while in office, which are impressive of any junior representative, let alone one with the specific challenges he faced. We can only hope this man can one day return to politics and help change this country for the better, which this film movingly depicts him doing from the start. Overall: B+