The Official Review Thread of 2022

[dws1982]

Nighy's performance is good, but not nearly as good as those two iconic ones. He is, however, deserving of his Oscar nomination in a rather weak year for leading actors in which all five nominees really were the best. The supporting performances are all excellent as well, though none of them truly stand out.

I really loved Nighy in this (the movie is a bit more wobbly); I actually think Nighy is much better than Shumura, whose playing to the rafters in the early parts of Ikiru kind of hurt that movie for me. I've been watching lots of Japanese films this year and I think there are several actors who would've been better in that role, but Shumura was a favorite of Kurosawa. Nighy would probably be my pick to win in Best Actor although if I voted I would either vote for Farrell or Butler because they have a chance to win.

[Big Magilla]

All the films nominated in the top eight categories are finally available either via streaming, VOD, or purchase.

Living nominated for Best Actor (Bill Nighy) and Adapted Screenplay, is the last of them.

This remake of Akira Kurosawa's 1952 film, Ikiru (to Live) which was not released in New York, Los Angeles, or London until 1960, takes place in 1950 and evokes 1950's Last Holiday as much as it does Ikiru. Both of those were about men whose lives changed after receiving news of impending death from their doctors, and both featured unforgettable performances by their stars, Alec Guinness in Last Holiday and Takashi Shimura in Ikiru.

Nighy's performance is good, but not nearly as good as those two iconic ones. He is, however, deserving of his Oscar nomination in a rather weak year for leading actors in which all five nominees really were the best. The supporting performances are all excellent as well, though none of them truly stand out.

[MILD SPOILER ALERT]
The screenplay, which follows the events of Kurosawa's film in pretty much the same way has the same problems as the original in that the man dies two-thirds of the way into the film and the events following his death are anti-climactic.

[anonymous1980]

CAUSEWAY
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Brian Tyree Henry, Linda Emond, Jane Houdyshell, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Russell Harvard.
Dir: Lila Neugebauer.

A U.S. soldier gets a traumatic brain injury during her tour of Afghanistan and returns home. While there, she befriends a mechanic who has experienced a tragedy of his own. This is one of the very few Oscar-nominated films I have left to see so I'm crossing this off my list. The film is pretty much a standard drama overall. It's well-made and well-intentioned. Jennifer Lawrence is very good in the lead role but i have to say, it's Brian Tyree Henry that really makes the film. His character and his performance actually lifts this film up and makes it actually memorable. He deserved that nomination. He is easily the best reason to see this film. But, yeah, overall, it's good but far from a masterpiece.

Grade: B.

[anonymous1980]

EMPIRE OF LIGHT
Cast: Olivia Colman, Micheal Ward, Colin Firth, Toby Jones, Tom Brooke, Tanya Moodie, Hannah Onslow, Crystal Clarke, Monica Dolan.
Dir: Sam Mendes.

It's Britain in the early 1980's and a movie theater manager suffering from schizophrenia has an affair with younger black man who recently came to work with her. First off, this is a very well-made, well-shot (of course by Roger Deakins) and very well acted. Olivia Colman and Micheal Ward are both excellent in the lead roles. But the film does not seem gel with a lot of the big issues, topics and themes its trying tackle. There's the "we need to treat people with mental illness better" element, the "there's racism in Britain in the early 1980's/racism is bad" element and the "the movies are a magical place" element. All are clashing with one another but director Sam Mendes, writing solo for the first time, can't seem to mesh them well together so the film feels all disjointed. But there are excellent individual scenes in it that makes it watchable. Overall, it's not bad but it's far from the great motion picture it was attempting to be.

Grade: B-

[anonymous1980]

THE WHALE
Cast: Brendan Fraser, Sadie Sink, Hong Chau, Ty Simpkins, Samantha Morton.
Dir: Darren Aronofsky.

A morbidly obese man, mourning the death of his boyfriend, tries to reconnect with his estranged daughter before the inevitable happens. I have to say that I can understand both the haters and the lovers of this film. It is a film that has a lot of big ideas and concepts which sometimes gets sacrificed for believable characters and a good narrative. It is a film that seems to want to inspire compassion for the morbidly obese but at the same time seems to be almost relishing in showing you the grotesque and the gross-ness of this condition. What I think keeps this film together is the performance of the cast. Brendan Fraser gives, yes, one of his career-best performances. His sensitive, compassionate performance somehow undercuts director Darren Aronofsky's more in-your-face choices that may come off as insensitive. He has fine support too from the rest of the cast including Hong Chau. It's not one of Aronofsky's best but it's overall pretty good (though far from great).

Grade: B.

[dws1982]

I found the subject matter of Fire of Love reasonably interesting, but something about the filmmaker/narrator rubbed me the wrong way. It kept feeling like she was trying to sell me some interpretation of the relationship (and the partners' careers) that wasn't quite supported by what she was showing me. The volcano footage was pretty impressive, and the climax inevitably touching. But I couldn't escape the feeling there was a discrepancy between what I was being told and what I was truly experiencing.

Werner Herzog's The Fire Within is about the same people, although I honestly have no idea if you would like it more or less. I watched it initially thinking I was watching Fire of Love (had the title wrong and then realized it a few minutes in) and liked it okay, although lots of requiem-type music is the main thing I remember about it right now.

[Mister Tee]

A loaner of an Amazon Fire with Disney+ access brought me up to date on a few nominees.

Whatever belief there was that Black Panther somehow, by subject matter, transcended the Marvel universe should be tossed aside after Wakanda Forever. The film pays homage to its late star (almost to the point of exploitation, but not quite), but is otherwise a pretty routine actioner in terms of events. (Weirdly, with its blue people who dwell underwater, it feels like a pre-ripoff of Avatar: the Way of Water.) The one thing about it that might have been interesting is the character of Namor, who raises legitimate gripes in his colloquium with Letitia Wright -- but then, for purposes of creating a battle-to-the-death, he does something unspeakably evil, and thus becomes Existential Bad Guy. (I Know: then, thanks to Wright, he sort of switches back, but that didn't make things nuanced; it just made them hopelessly muddled.) I really liked Wright in the first film, for her gleeful comic relief, but here she's all serious business, and not nearly as appealing. As for Angela Bassett -- about 2/3 pf the way through the movie, I thought, oh, THAT'S why she's nominated? Bassett is a very fine actress, but if she wins for this, it's another step on the down-a-lator for AMPAS.

Turning Red is a likable PIXAR effort -- dealing honorably with a social group (edge-of-teen girls) not often explored in any depth. I don't think the film soars like the best of PIXAR efforts -- the central metaphor, what the Red Panda represents (adolescent hormones? sexuality in general? growing past your family?), is a bit murky, and the plot doesn't have an awful lot of turns. But it's a nice movie that effortlessly incorporates Asian motifs and tells a cheerful story. To address a subject Sabin and Sonic discussed back when the film opened, I think Disney soft-pedaled the film because it featured (both literally and metaphorically) the facts of female bodily plumbing, something two prime audiences for animated features -- young boys and parents of small children -- would react against. I agree with what one of you said back last Spring -- that, had the film opened (to its very strong reviews), it might have succeeded on word of mouth among those who did turn out for it...but its perceived subject matter might have so limited the audience to start that that wouldn't have been enough. Especially given general uncertainty about box office at that point (and even now), I think the Disney+ decision can be understood.

I found the subject matter of Fire of Love reasonably interesting, but something about the filmmaker/narrator rubbed me the wrong way. It kept feeling like she was trying to sell me some interpretation of the relationship (and the partners' careers) that wasn't quite supported by what she was showing me. The volcano footage was pretty impressive, and the climax inevitably touching. But I couldn't escape the feeling there was a discrepancy between what I was being told and what I was truly experiencing.

[anonymous1980]

WOMEN TALKING
Cast: Rooney Mara, Claire Foy, Jessie Buckley, Ben Whishaw, Frances McDormand, Judith Ivey, Sheila McCarthy, Kate Hallett, Liv McNeil, Michelle McLeod, August Winter.
Dir: Sarah Polley.

When a group of Mennonite women discover that men in their colony has been drugging and raping them, a number of them gather to discuss how they're gonna proceed: do nothing, stay and fight or leave. What follows is a beautifully acted, riveting, austere drama which tackles very heady and very heavy topics like sexual assault, rape and religious faith that in the wrong hands could have been preachy, talky, stage-y or depressing. But in writer-director Sarah Polley's hands, it is intelligent, nuanced and quite cinematic. I can definitely see though why this film had some trouble gaining major traction this awards season. The style and milieu may be too alienating for some people. But it is ultimately a human story and Sarah Polley tells it quite beautifully and with plenty of empathy for its characters.

Grade: A-

[Big Magilla]

Having finally gotten around to seeing Babylon, I can't see why this film is seemingly so hated by the Hollywood establishment.

Yes, it's excessive and overly long, but it's also laugh out oud funny at times, and gets the fictionalized characters of John Gilbert, Clara Bow, Louella Parsons, Anna May Wong, Fatty Arbckle and more almost right.

Oscar voters had no trouble honoring other films that took potshots at the Hollywood establishment such as Sunset Boulevard, The Bad and the Beautiful, and The Day of the Locust, so why now?

This is a far better look at Hollywood than Damien Chazelle's ridiculously rewarded La La Land with its dreadful non-singers making mincemeat out of the songs. Here we get a nice blend of established music with a score that matches it perfectly. The one song that is sung through live, Harry Roy's 1931 sensation, "My Girl's Pussy", is sung by Li Jun Li who can actually sing.

And, yes, Margot Robbie was robbed. If Danielle Deadwyler was robbed of a nomination at the Oscars as she was at the Globes, it was by Ana de Armis. If Viola Davis was an also-ran this year, it was due to Michelle Williams who was always going to be nominated over her anyway. No, the last-minute push for Andrea Riseborough came at the expense of Robbie who did a much better interpretation of an out-of-control alcohol and drug abuser who sadly doesn't get another chance at the end.

[Big Magilla]

Rewatched Everything Everywhere All at Once

The first time I watched it, I didn't appreciate the fantasy elements except as a figment of Michele Yeoh's character's imagination. This time, I suspended disbelief and accepted the multi-universe sequences as something that was actually happening. I still found them a bit much, but I liked the characters in their other guises more. The best parts of the film for me were still the opening and ending sequences where the actors are playing their characters in the here and now.

I appreciated the performances of Ke Huy Quan and Stephanie Hsu a lot more this time. They are both very good and deserving of their Oscar nominations. I revised my list, replacing Ben Whishaw with Quan and Angela Bassett with Hsu. My winners, however, remain Barry Keoghan and Kerry Condon.

[Sabin]

I rewatched Black Panther: Wakanda Forever on Disney+ in the light of its myriad precursors just to see if I was underrating its accomplishments a little, including Bassett's performance. My issue with Wakanda Forever originally was that although Ryan Coogler gives it his all, he's largely undone by the herculean task of making this film about it's plot (Wakanda vs. Takalonia) as well as about the death of T'Challa/Boseman, to say nothing of the fact that it's just another rudderless post-Endgame MCU film. My thoughts are largely the same although one thing came a bit clearer into frame for me. I think Coogler knew that by dealing with the death of T'Challa as well as the plot, this film was going to end up being overstuffed. So, he lets it sort of... be that way. Had T'Challa lived, the catalyst for the film would've been Riri Williams and... whatever it was she was doing that made the Takalonians come after her. Honestly, I've seen it twice and it's such an afterthought, I barely recall. Because T'Challa is dead, that's the catalyst for the film so Riri Williams has to be an afterthought. It's really just the story of the birth of a new hero from grief mirrored by a confrontation of another similar figure from another kingdom (Namor).

Anyway, I'll say that Ryan Coogler is only somewhat undone, not largely undone. I do think it's a pretty interesting film. I'm just not very interested in it.

As for Bassett? Her role is a bit larger than I remembered and she is giving it her all. Sometimes it's to very good effect, and sometimes I would say she overacts. My biggest problem with her performance remains my biggest problem with the film overall. I don't think these films are a very good vessel for real-life grief. Some might feel otherwise, but when Angela Bassett is pouring her heart out and discussing events from the previous film, I just get pulled out of it.

[anonymous1980]

BABYLON
Cast: Margot Robbie, Brad Pitt, Diego Calva, Jovan Adepo, Jean Smart, Li Jun Li, Tobey Maguire, Olivia Wilde, Lukas Haas, P.J. Byrne, Max Minghella, Katherine Waterston, Rory Scovel, Olivia Hamilton, Flea, Eric Roberts, Samara Weaving, Jeff Garlin, Ethan Suplee, Spike Jonze.
Dir: Damien Chazelle.

This film chronicles the sex and drug-fueled world of the Golden Age of Hollywood from the mid-1920's through the early 1930's as it slowly transitions from silent pictures to talkies, all through the eyes of an idealistic Mexican immigrant and a young aspiring movie starlet. There is no denying that this is probably writer-director Damien Chazelle's most ambitious and risky project, a real big swing. The result is a film that is understandably divisive with its big ideas and often outrageous and shocking content. And I have to say: I kind of loved it. I found this to be a funny, wild, riveting ride into the dark, often demented and decadent world of show biz. Yes, it's long. Maybe a bit too long but I think it uses its long running time very well. I acknowledge it's flawed, there are moments where I think Chazelle bit off more than he could chew but the overall film is a bold piece of filmmaking that I won't soon forget and would love to see again. Yes, I'm on the "love" side of this one.

Grade: A-

[anonymous1980]

TILL
Cast: Danielle Deadwyler, Jalyn Hall, Whoopi Goldberg, Kevin Carroll, Frankie Faison, Haley Bennett, Jayme Lawson, Tosin Cole, Sean Patrick Thomas, John Douglas Thompson, Roger Guenvur Smith.
Dir: Chinonwe Chukwu.

This film is about Mamie Till-Mobley, the mother of the 14 year old African American boy Emmett Till who was lynched for allegedly whistling at a white woman and her fight for justice and civil rights. Yes, this film is quite compelling because of two reasons: the story itself is quite compelling and Danielle Deadwyler's truly outstanding performance. Basically, this is True Story Biopic Movie 101, hitting all the familiar narrative beats and all the familiar tropes. It doesn't really break new ground in that point in a filmmaking perspective despite being well-made otherwise. But, yeah, Danielle Deadwyler truly is a revelation in this movie and she is the reason the see it.

Grade: B.

[Sonic Youth]

I'm trying to find a sentence that I disagree with and I've come up with one: I was wrong to compare the film to Inland Empire.

I don't think you were because that's what I also compared it to... and Time Bandits, and The Arrival, and The Matrix, and Run Lola Run, and etc.  It should've been called Everything Everywhere All at Once and You've Seen It All Before.  Sure, it's all framed around a story about relationships, but that's just repurposing.  If EEAAO wins Best Picture, then it (nearly) becomes the second Best Picture in a row I shut off in the middle and never got back to.  Yes, CODA was the first. After my partial viewing of CODA (which was after the ceremony), I felt disgust towards the Academy on a level equal to back when they honored A Beautiful Mind.  I didn't hate EEAAO, just felt indifference.  Anyway, a few weeks later I did finish it.  And Sabin is right, the final third is a bit stronger that what came before.  But it didn't make much difference.  I watched with my wife and at the end we were both shrugging and saying "...so?".

It has the occasional virtue.  It did get a couple of laughs out of me, Michelle Yeoh's comic timing is lovely, and it has its visual idiosyncracies peppered here and there.  But there's no awe to it.  It's so claustrophobic and airless.  And it has the same flaw as The Matrix; that is, whatever visionary ambitions it has are undermined by talk talk talk, gab gab gab, explanation, exposition, etc.  It's also undermined by these little banal visual aids.  Raccoons, bagels, etc. Why do the Daniels resort to those? Are they trying to be self-effacing?  Do they not have faith in their own material?  Or do they believe this dumbing down makes the concepts more easily approachable to the audience?  If they do, they underestimate us.

Basically it's an indie superhero film. So, how is it? Well, on paper this is the kind of thing that I should be over the moon about but I guess I like it enough that I wish it were better. The notion that it's going to win Best Picture is pretty wild to me. It's such a weird film I'm honestly not sold it is going to happen with the preferential ballot.

And I've thought all this as well.  (I should have written this earlier.  Oh well...)  To me, EEAAO resembled an X-Men origin story, only all the different powers and personalities are embodied in a single individual.  And I'm also having a hard time imagining AMPAS giving it Best Picture.  Not because I didn't like it - that's nothing new - but becuase it's such a silly film.  I don't mean that derisively, like "Ugh!  They liked THAT silly film?  No, I mean objectively speaking, the humor is so silly.  Stapling memos to people's heads, awards shaped like butt plugs, the speeded-up fight scenes, Jamie Lee Curtis's wig, the bagels and raccoons etc.  The Academy never really honors films with this kind of humor.  That said, it's the sort of one-off film the Academy DOES like to offer.  Films like "Slumdog Millionaire", "The Artist", "The Shape of Water", "Parasite", some of them foreign if not necessarily non-english language films (or in this case, an American film with an english/non-english correlate), often in a genre the Academy doesn't usually award and isn't likely to award again any time soon.  In other words, novelties.  And EEAAO is enough of a novelty that the Academy may very well bite.

[Sabin]

It's no secret that I rewatch my films. One of my pleasures in life is how my relationship with certain films changes as the months go on and as the years go on. Going to the movies is still one of the defining pleasures of my life. I rewatched Everything Everywhere All At Once (at home) and I glanced back to what I wrote about a year ago:

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

I'm trying to find a sentence that I disagree with and I've come up with one: I was wrong to compare the film to Inland Empire. Everything Everywhere All At Once's governing principles can be easily understood. They're just really silly and not as clearly written as they should be especially in the first act. These guys aren't great writers. They can handle a lark like Swiss Army Man but something like this really would've benefited from a more analytical glance (maybe a producer) to ask where certain plot elements would be best introduced and how much exposition is too much. To wit, Michel Gondry had the good sense to hire Charlie Kaufman for Eternal Sunshine... Imagine if Gondry tackled it himself!

I'll try to keep this brief: this is a well-meaning film with a big heart. I understand why so many people are taken by it. But because the first act makes so many missteps (in my opinion) I felt like I was outside it for the rest of the film on now two viewings. It never bonds us with Evelyn from the get-go, or afterwards. We're told things like "She's the worst Evelyn" but we're never shown how. The divorce papers are handled clumsily. The problems between Evelyn and Joy aren't introduced as important enough to eventually become the driving force of the film. And the pre-sci fi bits are tonally identical to when Alpha Waymond arrives in the elevator so that it all feels the same from beginning to end. Yes, I'm just describing the first 10-15 minutes of the movie but they carry throughout the film. For example, it's pretty clear that the accepted reality of this film is meant to exist as an ambiguous manifestation of Evelyn's state of mind. But because I never felt bonded to Evelyn from the start, I never quite felt why this mattered for her, like why doing something she would never do would be a big deal. Instead, I just felt like I was watching Michelle Yeoh become a badass once again. The filmmakers are much more adept at moments that feels like music videos or montage. It's no coincidence that these are the moments that most resemble a superhero film. The film settles into more of a groove during the fanny pack fight.

Basically it's an indie superhero film. So, how is it? Well, on paper this is the kind of thing that I should be over the moon about but I guess I like it enough that I wish it were better. The notion that it's going to win Best Picture is pretty wild to me. It's such a weird film I'm honestly not sold it is going to happen with the preferential ballot.

On a related note: the filmmakers are clearly in inspired by Michel Gondry with a similar DIY aesthetic that has followed all of their work. Interestingly enough, this film came out eighteen years (the number of life!) plus one week after Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a film which EEAAO is clearly indebted. There's a lot that is depressing about the film world today, however I'm heartened by the notion that maybe today ESOTSM wouldn't have been a flop especially with a company like A24 behind it. What if we just give out Best Picture to Eternal Sunshine... instead?