tick, tick...BOOM!

 In tick, tick...BOOM! Andrew Garfield plays composer Jonathan Larson, who gave us the Broadway musical Rent in the mid-90's.  The movie is the first directing effort from current Broadway titan Lin Manuel Miranda, and it's a powerhouse debut for Lin behind the camera.  Focusing on Larson's days struggling working days in a diner in New York City while writing music at night, most of the film is set in 1990 a few days before a pivotal workshop of his first musical, Superbia, and before his feared 30th birthday.  The film intercuts between this time in his life and a stage narration seemingly during a presentation of his second musical that shares the name of this film.  The title of the movie carries multiple references:  his second musical, his fear of turning 30 without achieving a successful musical, and as viewers we know Larson passes at the tender age of 35, gone all too soon.  He never got to see his dream of a huge Broadway success come true.  Rent opened the day after he died suddenly and went on to dominate the circuit for over a decade.

There's a lot to like about this movie, even if you are only a casual fan of the movie musical.  First, Larson's lyrics remain relevant today and he had a way with melody.  The scenes of musical numbers are welcomed by a fearless performance from Garfield.  My favorite scene is early on in the movie when, at a low point in a party in his small New York apartment, Larson begins tapping and singing, encouraging his friends to sing along.  Before long, he's swinging around and leaping over furniture like a budget Fred Astaire.  The song, the beat, the mood of the whole thing is so engaging that I wanted to watch that scene again immediately.  Regarding Garfield's performance, I read that he had never really sung before but threw himself into this.  He does a terrific job with the physicality and focus required for the musical aspects of the film, and it's one of his best dramatic, and comedic, performances so far.  I think one of the best things about Garfield in this movie is he's so likable as Larson, and he makes you want Larson to achieve his dream.  You don't want to see him give in for a paycheck as he is tempted to do.  Garfield finds a way to show you how hard it is to take a risk like that.  For my money, his is the performance to beat at this year's Oscars.

The movie serves as a moving tribute to a person that many, including myself, probably knew very little about.  Yet, it also stands as something all too rare these days.  A work of art that encourages dreamers to keep dreaming and toiling for their art.  It is also a reminder that we should have dreams and we, as human beings, have the right to dream.  It adds so much more to life to have a dream to work towards.  It's thrilling to see the moments on screen when Larson has the small wins, even when he's faced with a mounting stack of bills and has to deal with situations like the power getting shut off in his small apartment.  He turns that situation into a positive and writes one of his best songs.  

Ultimately, I was left believing the movie is a celebration of life, art, and dreams.  No small feat.  

Parasite

Parasite is a film from the Korean director of Snowpiercer.  If you've seen Snowpiercer, you'd agree that he's interested in telling stories that say something about current social issues, class differences, and the divides that our varying economies create throughout our world.  Parasite really showcases his ability to tell a very heavy story in an engaging and entertaining way that crosses cultural boundaries.  I wasn't a big fan of Snowpiercer, but this one is a really well made movie that kept my interest throughout and surprised me.

Without giving anything away, the movie begins in what I think was South Korea with a family who lives on the verge of homelessness and in real poverty.  This is shown with a subtle, light humor, rather than a plea for us, as viewers, to immediately feel bad for them.  They seem to be bright, interesting people who are just down on their luck.  They are making money any way they can - folding pizza boxes for a local restaurant is what we see at first.  You get the understanding that they live day by day.  If they don't make some cash each day, they probably don't eat.  The story is set in Korea, but this could easily translate to our western world.

Soon, their teenage son receives a visit from a friend who tips him off that he should apply to be a tutor for a local wealthy family.  He does apply and he gets the job, which sets off a chain of escalating events that would spoil the movie if I continued to explain.  The previews for the movie don't give it away, so I won't either.  What I will say is, by the end of the movie, you completely understand the title and would agree it's very apt.

If I'm honest, this movie made me very uncomfortable.  It's kind of brilliant in that way.  Situations we experience in every day life, such as throwing together an afternoon party for friends and family, are luxuries that many in our world can't afford or even conceive of.  It's a sad but true scenario.  So, movies and stories like this make me feel guilty in some ways.  Guilty of not stopping to appreciate the little things often enough.  Guilty of not seeking more ways to assist and help others who may be less fortunate.  Am I doing enough to contribute to society?  These are heavy notions to be challenged with when watching a movie that's as well-drawn and truly entertaining as this one.  Obviously, this is part of its appeal and why the movie has caught on so well with the critical community.

The plot was surprising enough that about mid-way through it throws you a few curveballs to keep you guessing.  I naively thought I had it all figured out about 45 minutes in, but thankfully I was wrong.  The movie offers you a lot.  It has an intriguing narrative, slick visuals, a Hitchcock-like tone, and powerful social commentary.  It's a heavy two plus hours at the movies, but it's worth it.

In the end, I was left with an uneasy feeling though.  Stories like this put a lens on some real and important issues, but their job isn't to really offer any answers.  With real issues like overpopulation and a growing social divide, how do we make things better for all, not just for a few?  Of course, the answers aren't easy and they are riddled with complexities.  Again, this is a slick, entertaining "punch-in-the-face" of a movie that I'll be thinking about for days.  In part, because I certainly don't have all the answers.

1917

1917 might be a perfect movie.  It's one of those rare films that doesn't waste a moment.  There's nothing I would change about it.  It says something that my wife agreed completely.  We were thrilled by the same footage and scenes throughout the movie.  Watching the movie became an experience in the greatest of ways.  If I had to use just one word to describe it then it would have to be powerful.

Directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Skyfall), the movie is a love letter to his grandfather, who fought in World War I.  Probably because of that, it feels both grand in scope and incredibly intimate at the same time.  The film centers on two young men (boys, really) who are British troops stationed in France.  They receive a mission to travel through hazardous territory to deliver a message to another battalion before they fall for a trap set by the German army.  One of them has an older brother who is part of the other battalion, so that just increases the stakes. They have to travel through trenches, underground caverns with rats running wild, and across lands where they could be blown up at any moment by unexpected land mines.

Most of the movie intentionally feels like one long shot.  The camera never really breaks or edits to another angle or scene.  This effectively puts you along the journey with them.  If they are surprised by an enemy soldier, so are you.  It's truly a great emotional device that the movie deploys.

There were probably 5 or so times in the movie where the plot, the music, the footage, and the action all converge to create something that feels incredibly special.  I couldn't help but think I was watching some scenes that would become cinema history.  It has moments of high artistry.

The ending was note perfect.  A stunning achievement.  I went into the movie thinking it would be good, but probably not my vote for Best Picture of the year.  I walked out knowing I'd just seen the Best Picture of the year.  Honestly, one of the best pictures I've ever seen.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

How do I start this?  Well, I'm 43 years old and Star Wars is 42.  I've seen in documentaries that the first Star Wars movie began shooting footage in Tunisia in March of 1976, which is the month and year I was born.  So, I grew up in the age of Star Wars fandom, and I'm one of those adults who so passionately links the original trilogy somehow to a pure nostalgic happiness.  Memories of standing in line waiting to get into the theater to see these movies is as precious to me as any of my childhood. Due to my age, I saw the original in a rerelease in the early 80's, but I absolutely remember seeing The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi at the Jackson MetroCenter Cinema 4 when they were released.  I remember going home and swinging my baseball bat around pretending it was a lightsaber.  I remember Luke with his lightsaber being my favorite parts of those movies, and I felt as though it was the most exciting thing to see as a kid.  I recognize I'm just one of several billion who have felt that way over the years.  People have a personal attachment to Star Wars that transcends these beyond being "just movies".  It's probably unhealthy to an extent, but for people of my generation they are so much more than movies.  They are part of the fabric of who we are.

Thus, when The Phantom Menace came out in 1999 and the prequel trilogy kicked off, fan fervor was rampant.  I, with my friends, stood in line through the night and into the morning on the day tickets went on sale to make sure we could see it opening day.  By the time the prequel trilogy ended, people were largely disappointed that Lucas couldn't recreate the full feelings of the original trilogy and everyone seemed to have a better idea of what could have been done.  If Star Wars were any normal experience, it would have meant that starting another trilogy even a decade later would have been out of the question.  Being that this is Star Wars, though, when Disney purchased Lucasfilm and announced they'd begin a sequel trilogy, the fan fervor immediately heated up again.  By the time The Force Awakens opened in late 2015, everyone seemed to have forgiven any problems they had with the prequels and were just ready to dive back into the world of the Skywalker family and see what was in store.  And yet again, even though there was a mixed reception to The Force Awakens, it proved the power of our fascination with The Force and that need to return to this science fiction realm that provides so many of us with such a strong feeling of comfort.  It was like going home again.

Now, we come to the end of the sequel trilogy with The Rise of Skywalker.  I'll try to remain spoiler free.  It's widely promoted that this is both the ending to the new trilogy and also to the Skywalker storyline overall.  It's also widely known that The Last Jedi became very divisive and some fans liked the direction that the storyline took, while others very vocally didn't.  We also know that J.J. Abrams directed The Force Awakens, then reigns were handed to Rian Johnson for The Last Jedi, and The Rise of Skywalker was supposed to be directed by the guy who made Jurassic World but they ended up bringing Abrams back.  Having all that backstory influences the way you watch The Rise of Skywalker and ultimately will be a big factor in how this trilogy is viewed and rewatched over time.

I enjoyed The Rise of Skywalker as an individual film.  It's witty, fast paced, fun, action-packed, and as full of emotional moments and scenery as any Star Wars film should be.  I am of the camp who was glad that Abrams was back.  The Last Jedi felt like a detour to me.  It slowed down and spun the story into interesting, but different directions.  The Rise of Skywalker is criticized for a lot online, and I understand the criticisms, but I didn't enjoy the movie any less for them.  What I will say is that looking back on the sequel trilogy as a whole, I really wish Abrams had steered the entire ship and either directed all three or been a consistent driving force in all three.  As it stands, it's eternally going to feel uneven.

So, here's more that I can say.  Daisy Ridley was awesome.  I mean awesome.  She owned the role in a confident manner that reflected her understanding of the character and her growth as an actress.  Adam Driver is his usual intense self as Kylo Ren.  When the script calls for subtle emotion, he can deliver with the best.  John Boyega and Oscar Issac are so pleasant together as Finn and Poe - something The Last Jedi strayed from.  It's so fun to see them play off of one another again as was started in The Force Awakens.  All the actors were on point.  They brought humor and fun to the film.  I've read that they all were happy Abrams was back, and I felt it showed.

The effects are the usual top notch standard.  There's pretty much nothing that can't be displayed on screen with visual effects anymore, and Star Wars always makes good use of technology.  As I mentioned earlier, the pace is fast and fun, which I think benefits a Star Wars movie.  Between the bouts of heavy emotion, we are used to quippy dialogue, lots of fast tracking shots with actors running and firing laser canons, new uniforms on the Stormtroopers, and cool gadgets used in fun and interesting ways.  You get all that here.  The movie remembers to entertain and be fun.

The Rise of Skywalker, on its own, succeeds in a lot of ways to me.  It's the kind of Star Wars movie that I want to see.  Unfortunately though, the legacy of this sequel trilogy will once again be one of disappointment, for a variety of viewpoints and reasons.  We were, as a culture, disappointed in the prequels.  We will be, as a culture, disappointed in the sequels.  What I keep thinking about though is if in 10 years they announce an Episode X, would we lose our minds in anticipation and hope for that perfect trilogy ahead?  OF COURSE WE WOULD!

The beauty and joy of Star Wars lies in that answer.

Marriage Story

To align with the film's his & her trailers, my wife and I are reviewing Marriage Story together.  Jason's comments are prefaced with HIM and Sarah's are prefaced with HER.

HIM:  Anticipation around our house has been high for this film for several reasons.  We both love the director's debut, Kicking and Screaming (1995).  It's eternally a Top 5 personal favorite for me.  We both love Adam Driver and, especially, Scarlett Johansson.  The idea of seeing how Kylo Ren and Black Widow would handle this emotional movie would have been enough to ensure we would be watching it.  On top of all of this, the topic of marriage and divorce is such a relatable one that it becomes easily a must-see event.

HER: Anyone who follows me on social media knows I love Scarlett. I first noticed her in Ghost World. Then she made Lost in Translation with family favorite Bill Murray, and I became a forever fan. Add in Adam Driver and director Noah Baumbach, and Marriage Story quickly rose to the top of my list. Not surprisingly, the awards are already stacking up for the film and its cast and crew. 

HIM:  About the story.  The story is about Charlie (Driver) and Nicole (Johansson) who are married with an 8 year old son.  They live in New York and have a working relationship together in the theater.  The movie does a terrific job of drawing you into their lives and painting a picture of who these people are.  I won't offer more detail than that on their background, except to say one of the brilliant aspects of the script and the direction is in how the story is told and how you are filled in.  From there, you are with them on their journey through separation and the process of filing for divorce.  It's uniquely sweet, humorous, tragic, dire, wonderful, and nightmarish in all the ways life can be, and certainly in the ways a marriage falling apart can be.

HER: So I absolutely loved the separate trailers and how they gave you a snapshot of Charlie & Nicole's characters through the other's words. The movie begins like that but with extended descriptions. It's a fabulous way to introduce the characters and the love that they have for each other before the pain train arrives. 

HIM:  About the director.  Noah Baumbach has made a mature film.  Mature in both subject matter and presentation.  As much as I adore Kicking and Screaming, I'd pick Marriage Story as his masterpiece.  All of his writing and directing skills are peaking with this movie.  It's obviously a very personal film for him, and it brings out the best in his abilities.  The dialogue is dense and memorable.  The speeches and scenes are realistic and feel lived in.  He injects humor in light ways that provide the viewer with much needed levity at times.  For Baumbach, it's nothing short of a triumphant work of art and skill. 

HER: I frequently read about movies online. I check IMDB probably once a day and always after I finish a film. An interesting tidbit about Noah Baumbach's direction and writing is that he did not want any improvisation in the big fight scene. Every word, every hesitation is in his script. I find that fascinating because it all feels so in the moment as it unfolds. There is also a heavy theater aspect to the way the scenes are set up and how the actors move throughout. While watching, Jason and I agreed it felt very much a like play, which is what Baumbach intended. 

HIM:  About the actors.  Driver and Johansson are equally at their best.  I've never entirely understood why people are so enthralled with Driver.  I tend to find him almost emotionless.  In this film, he breaks beyond that barrier in wonderful and poignant ways.  Johansson has long been an actor who can show strength with believability, but in this film she becomes a woman finding her strength.  It's a journey she handles with great accuracy and honest emotion.  This feels like a movie that probably wore them both down.  It's likely that every day was a tough day at work. 

HER: I haven't seen much of Driver's work besides Star Wars and a couple indie films. He has an understated leading man quality that is really becoming apparent this year. Much of this movie is about Charlie's journey through the divorce process. Where Nicole was unhappy in the marriage, he is unhappy in the divorce. She flourishes while he flounders. Driver's downward spiral is masterful. Johansson, to me, is so subtle in her performances that sometimes people dismiss her. This role really showcases her talent. The monologue scene where Nicole tells Laura Dern's attorney character the story of her marriage is heartbreaking. My favorite quote of Nicole's: "I never really came alive for myself. I was only feeding his aliveness."

HIM:  Final thoughts.  At the end of the film, my wife and I dried our eyes and hugged for a long time.  The movie is beautiful and brutal.  It's not an overstatement for me to say this will likely be my favorite film of the year.  This movie was everything I thought it could be and more.  It's gut wrenching but worth every moment.  One day, I'll brace myself and watch it again.  It's a masterpiece.   Plain and simple.  

HER: I have not experienced divorce. My parents were married for 41 years before my dad's death. Jason and I have been married for 16 years. And yet, I was with these characters completely. I honestly never took a side. I did see moments where one was at fault or handled a situation badly. But I love that there is never really a villain, other than the divorce process itself. Not even the lawyers who are just doing the best for their clients. A major point of this story is that even though Nicole and Charlie want to divorce as simply and amicably as possible, the process tears them apart. It's tragic, touching, and even funny at times. Kudos to all. 

The Irishman

Early on in The Irishman the film introduces you to Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci) and Frank Sheeran (Robert DeNiro).  Pesci hasn't starred in a major motion picture since The Good Shepherd in 2006.  And before that his last big film was 1998's Lethal Weapon 4.  So, it's been a long while since we've seen him.  I didn't expect to be so pleased when he first came into frame, once again in material rooted in the world of the Mafia.  After all, other than Home Alone, the image of Pesci that always comes to mind when I hear his name is from Goodfellas as Tommy, a wild and often uncontrollable powder keg.  In The Irishman, he plays Bufalino as a cool, calm, and collected navigator of organized crime.  He's a guy who treats the Mafia world as one with traditions that need to be passed down and respected.  Pesci turns out to be fantastic even when he's not called upon to overact.  His performance really stood out to me.

There's a lot to The Irishman that is quickly becoming the stuff of legend:

• Scorsese finally makes another Mafia movie
• Pesci comes out of retirement for the film - after being asked over 50 times to do so
• The movie puts Scorsese, DeNiro, Pesci, & Pacino together for the first time
• Gasp!  It's a Netflix release and not playing at the local cineplex!
• It supposedly cost over $150 million to make
• It's almost 3.5 hours long
• And Scorsese said something about Marvel movies not being cinema...blah...blah...blah

So, this movie is nothing if not bold.  

As for the story, it's the account of Frank Sheeran, a mob associate of Jimmy Hoffa's.  The movie is from Frank's perspective and jumps around in time tracking the characters through the bulk of their entire adult lives. A lot of the production cost went into visual effects to age the characters properly.  The effects mostly work, minus a few glaring shots of DeNiro early on that weren't very convincing.  We're about 45 minutes or more into the movie before we meet Jimmy Hoffa, played by Al Pacino.  You'll hear a lot about this being Pacino's best role in years, and I most certainly agree.  He's alive in this one like I haven't seen him recently.   Scenes where his Hoffa throws long, impassioned fits reminded me of Pacino in his 90's surge of Scent of a Woman and the masterful Heat.  I can still hear is detective in Heat screaming "GIVE ME ALL YA GOT!!!!"  That's the kind of Pacino we get to see again.

To be clear, Pesci and Pacino are the reasons I liked this movie.  It's well done all around, but they stole the show for me.  I felt the lack when they weren't onscreen.

DeNiro is solid as usual, but I think Sheeran was perhaps the least interesting character onscreen. Which is odd because it's essentially Sheeran's movie.  He makes a lot of amoral choices and they didn't always add up to me.  I kept wondering why the guy is really doing some of the things he does.   Why he's ok with it all.  Part of my problem here is probably the sheer depth of story that the movie goes into.  It's one of those films where you really have to remember names from conversations and who talks crap about who.  It's overwhelming at times with details like that.  In the end, I think it contributed to my lack of understanding because I lost track of who Frank was even talking about every now and then.  

Now, about Scorsese.  Something about this world of gangsters and organized crime brings out the best in him.  The film takes on an energy, at times, that is reminiscent of GoodFellas (which I consider to be his masterpiece).  The Irishman is not, to me, on the same level as GoodFellas, but it's a great movie to watch if you like the Scorsese movie mold of the early 90's.  And, possibly because of the freedom brought on by Netflix, he's able to slow down and draw out the story.  By the end, you feel like you've really seen a fully fleshed out story that takes its time closing.  

When the movie was over, I'll admit it was bittersweet.  How many more films like this will we get?  Since the actors and director aren't getting any younger, it's highly likely this could be a last blast of sorts.  So, I'm going to appreciate it for what it is.  It's not GoodFellas, but it's artistry in the same vein and at a different level, from a more contemplative version of Scorsese.  It was simply a thrill to see DeNiro, Pesci, and Pacino in the same frame...while knowing all along that somewhere off camera Scorsese was calling the shots.  When a movie has all that, it gets nothing but respect from me.  

Once Upon A Time In...Hollywood

I have such great memories of watching Quentin Tarantino movies.  The memory that stands the tallest in my recollection is being 18 years old and going to see Pulp Fiction for the first time.  Of course, I didn't realize what would happen after that in the landscape of movies, but I absolutely remember knowing I'd just watched something that felt incredibly unique and was 100% entertaining throughout.  At that time, in 1994, I was floored by how vital and alive the movie felt.  The dialogue was so sharp, many of the actors were playing against type, and the movie had the audacity to jump time without pandering to the audience.  It was the kind of movie that you immediately wanted to rewatch to put the pieces all together.  Then Hollywood tried to replicate it time and again throughout the remainder of the 1990's and beyond.  In some ways, Tarantino himself has spent the remainder of his career trying to replicate the lightning bolt surge that was Pulp Fiction.

As with many of the great directors, Tarantino movies are laced throughout with signatures.  Be it the narrative structure, the framing of shots, the extended scenes of conversational dialogue, the eventual hyper-violence, or the tight shots of bare-feet, within a few minutes of any Tarantino movie you know you are unmistakably watching a Tarantino movie.  Once Upon A Time continues that tradition and, after the western-focused The Hateful Eight, is somewhat of a return to "standard" Tarantino fare - if there is such a thing.

Set in 1969 the story centers on DiCaprio's Rick Dalton.  Rick is somewhat a has-been actor whose had brief accomplishments in TV and movies during the 50's and early 60's, but he's on his way out of the limelight.  His career has seen much better days.  You get the impression that he's never lived up to his own expectations.  Rick spends a lot of his time with his primary stunt double, Cliff Booth, played by the incomparable Brad Pitt. To watch DiCaprio and Pitt side-by-side riffing off of one another is a fun time at the movies.  For my generation, the combination of Tarantino, Pitt,  and DiCaprio is such an intriguing set up.  We know both actors have worked with Tarantino before, but not in the same movie.  So, for a certain group of people, the movie is a must see just based on who's involved.

Without giving much away that the trailers don't already explain, Rick and Cliff live within close proximity to Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski.  The movie takes place prior to the Manson murders and, while this isn't a Manson family movie, it does explore some of the history of the family and that fateful, very horrible event.  Sharon Tate is played by Margot Robbie and her performance is a bright spot in the movie.  Robbie and Tarantino clearly want viewers to understand and appreciate Sharon in a bit of an homage to her brief career.

As for DiCaprio, he's simply terrific as Rick.  He makes you feel bad for this guy, and his performance has moments of hilarity.  Pitt is Pitt. He's reliable, always cool, and acts with an effortless charisma.  He's one of those actors that holds the screen so unbelievably well that it makes me wonder how many people like him are out there that never ventured into acting.  It's hard to imagine movies without Brad Pitt.  He'll always be one of my favorites to watch.

This movie has a lot going for it.  The recreation of 1969 Hollywood and LA is immersive and impressive.  The cars, the buildings, the signage, the tunes on the radio, the clothing, it's all fantastic to view.  The late 60's had so much turbulence, not unlike today's times, and it remains a fascinating modern timeframe to me.  So, the setting of this film in that era made it all the more interesting to me.

I enjoyed the movie.  I'd watch it again.  However, I don't think it stands very tall, ultimately, in the Tarantino canon.  This being the 9th film from Quentin, I'd rank it behind Kill Bill Vol 1 & 2, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Inglorious Bastards.  Those are my favorites.  It's above Django Unchained, Jackie Brown and The Hateful Eight.  So it's my #6 in the Tarantino-verse.  That seems low, but the margin of preference across those first 6 is slim.  And you read that right - the Kill Bill's are, in mine and my wife's view, his collective masterpiece.