During a Normal Game Night, Friends Become Pawns

From left: Kylie Bunbury, Lamorne Morris, Billy Magnussen,
Sharon Horgan, Jason Bateman, and Rachel McAdams
in "Game Night"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

We’ve all had times when we get together with friends to have a game night.  Whether it be board games, video games, or any other kind of game, there’s a good time to be had when you mix friendship with the thrill of competition.  At times, it can go from playful rivalries to screaming at each other (I’ve experienced such a transition while playing Mario Kart: Double Dash with friends in college).  However, no matter what happens, the steam blows over right away, and all’s well again.

The concept of bonding over games is something that’s taken to comedic extremes in John Francis Daly and Jonathan Goldstein’s new film, “Game Night,” a funny, smart, and unpredictable romp that revels in its madcap antics.

Max (Jason Bateman) and Annie (Rachel McAdams) are a husband and wife who connect over their competitiveness and have hosted many game nights.  When Max’s more-successful brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler), comes to town, he invites Max, Annie, and their friends (Billy Magnussen, Sharon Horgan, Lamorne Morris, and Kylie Bunbury) over to his rental for a game night of his own, which he intends to be a kidnapping mystery.  When a duo of assailants breaks in and takes Brooks, the others believe the criminals to be actors in the game.  After the friends begin to play, they soon realize that everything that’s happening is real and must do what they can to find Brooks.

The cast is loaded with fine performances, all of whom get to contribute laughs, but there are a few who stand out the most, particularly McAdams, Magnussen, and Jesse Plemons, who plays a police officer and Max and Annie’s neighbor.  

Although McAdams has been in a few comedies throughout her career, this is the first time since her breakthrough role in 2004’s “Mean Girls” that she gets to show off her comedic skills.  She exhibits a boundless energy for the duration of the film that keeps you caught up in the excitement, and she has one of best moments of the film where she gets to imitate Amanda Plummer’s Honey Bunny character from “Pulp Fiction.”  

Plemons is a blast to watch, seeing as he takes a comically serious approach to his character, hardly cracking a smile throughout the film, but making the audience do nothing but that during his scenes.  With his character, Plemons strikes a terrific balance between being creepy and funny, and whenever he’s on screen, this enjoyable movie becomes even more so.

Magnussen steals his share of scenes as the group’s lovable doofus and provides wonderful delivery for some of the film’s funniest lines.  What’s great about Magnussen’s character is that, even though he’s dumb, his brainlessness is downplayed, as opposed to putting it into trying-to-hard-to-make-you-laugh territory, such as what we saw with Chris Hemsworth’s character in 2016’s “Ghostbusters” reboot.

The screenplay by Mark Perez takes the simple idea of a game night and provides it with many twists, which results in a narrative that offers plenty of fun as it leaves you guessing where the insanity is going to go next.  Given the amount of characters that take part in the outrageousness, the film has lots of possibilities as to what could happen, and this allows each character a chance to exhibit their comedic skills.

The story also includes some subtle references to different games, such as Operation and The Game of Life, and uses them for certain plot points.  This lets you see the comedic results of the characters being in real-life versions of these games at certain moments, which adds another level to the aspect of them having to use their gaming expertise to get through each challenge.  One such instance is an entertaining sequence, which is meant to resemble a game of Pac-Man, where the group of friends is chased around a mansion by assailants, and the scene is made more enjoyable because it’s shown in a fast-moving long take, thanks to Barry Peterson’s cinematography.

Although this movie’s basically a comedic version of David Fincher’s 1997 mystery-thriller, “The Game,” directors Daley and Goldstein still manage to deliver terrific entertainment.  They have the film maintain a quick pace as they move from one set piece to another, keep the laughs constant, and use neat visuals in some instances to make the settings look like that of a game board.

If you would like a game night with higher stakes and wilder times, ditch Hasbro and Milton Bradley, and go with this movie.

Final grade: B+

A Group of Researchers Explores a Biological Anomaly

From left: Jennifer Jason Leigh, Natalie Portman, Tuva
Novotny, Tessa Thompson, and Gina Rodriguez
in "Annihilation"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

Writer-director Alex Garland is someone who’s made several contributions to the sci-fi and horror genres over the last 15 years.  He gave us a zombie apocalypse in “28 Days Later”; an outer-space thriller with “Sunshine”; a heartbreaking, futuristic love story with “Never Let Me Go”; and a grungy, urban dystopia with “Dredd.”

Then, about three years ago, he made his directorial debut with the unnerving, artificial-intelligence thriller “Ex Machina,” which he also wrote.  Not only was this one of the best films of 2015, but it also showed that Garland had a promising career as a filmmaker.  Afterwards, I couldn’t wait to see what his follow-up project would be.

In his second go-around as a director, Garland continues to fascinate with his sci-fi film, “Annihilation,” which is based on the first novel in Jeff VanderMeer’s “Southern Reach Trilogy.”  Bolstered by a talented cast, disturbing and gorgeous visuals, and a multilayered story, Garland offers further proof that he’s one of our next great sci-fi visionaries.

Lena (Natalie Portman) is a biologist and former soldier whose military husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac), has been missing for almost a year after leaving for a mysterious assignment.  When he returns as the sole survivor of his team, Lena’s taken to a research facility and learns that Kane and his group were exploring a quarantined zone called “The Shimmer,” where the creatures and landscapes inside have experienced mutations.  Lena soon joins an expedition with psychologist Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh), paramedic Anya (Gina Rodriguez), physicist Josie (Tessa Thompson), and surveyor and geologist Cass (Tuva Novotny) to find a way to destroy “The Shimmer” before it expands across the world.

Natalie Portman delivers an effective lead performance as someone whose life has been upended by the disappearance of her husband, only to be thrown off balance even more by the scientific and dangerous phenomenon at hand.  Portman’s work in this film brings out the uncertainty that her character felt before the events of the movie and continues to feel, exhibiting a closed-off persona that gives us an idea of how much emotional unrest her husband’s disappearance and troubling reappearance have caused her.  However, Portman’s character still displays an invigorating strength that she knows must be used in order to complete the team’s mission.

As far as the supporting performances go, Leigh, Rodriguez, Thompson, Novotny, and Isaac are each given a scene or two in which they have the opportunity to stand out.  This is particularly the case with Rodriguez, in which she gets to be the center of one of the most-disturbing scenes in the film and let her acting abilities add a lot to the terror of this sequence. 

Just like what cinematographer Rob Hardy accomplished with “Ex Machina,” he captures the lushness and colors of the environment of “The Shimmer” while juxtaposing the fatal dangers hiding within.  What’s so effective about the way Hardy photographs the landscapes of “The Shimmer” is how fully he presents them.  Whether it’s through a long shot that allows us to see the intimidating expanse of “The Shimmer,” or a close-up where we see the smaller details of the surroundings, the visuals are filled with a beauty that amazes as much as it haunts.

Despite a rather-unnecessary subplot that’s brought up for two quick scenes, Garland’s screenplay is one that keeps you tense throughout.  Most of the story, while enshrouded in mystery, is still pretty straightforward, but the final 15 minutes or so are a mind trip that will have you theorizing the events of the movie right after you leave the theater.  This is a narrative that takes its time in unraveling the secrets within “The Shimmer,” all while giving us a couple of scenes that frighten us without overstaying their welcome.

Seeing as Portman plays the main character, Lena’s backstory is given more attention than those of the four other researchers; however, with that quartet of supporting characters, we’re given a little bit of backstory for each of them that’s just enough to let us understand their actions, but it’s not so much that it detracts attention from the enigma that the film presents.

As a director, Garland once again shows that he’s a master at tension, especially in a climactic scene where Portman’s character must confront “something” (I put that in quotations because I don’t want to give anything away).  He constructs this scene in such a way that I felt a tightening in my chest as this sequence took place.  And, as great as this scene is, it’s almost a relief when it’s over because of how breathless it made me feel, and the unsettling score from Ben Salisbury and Geoff Barrow (who composed the music for “Ex Machina”) heightens the scene’s impact.

Given the quality of his first two movies as a filmmaker, Garland is someone who has a long career ahead of him behind the camera.  For more than a decade, he’s shown us the wealth of stories he can present to the sci-fi genre, and his transition from a writer to writer-director has opened up new possibilities of what can emerge from his talent.  With “Ex Machina,” and now “Annihilation,” it looks like Garland will use his skills as a director to further empower his ability to engage audiences with his intelligent narratives.  If this is what we can expect from him moving forward, then no matter what he thinks of next, I’m sure he will make us, as an audience, think.

Final grade: A-

Predictions for the 90th Academy Awards

Best Supporting Actor: Willem Dafoe (“The Florida Project”), Woody Harrelson (“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”), Richard Jenkins (“The Shape of Water”), Christopher Plummer (“All the Money in the World”), and Sam Rockwell (“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”)

Photo Credit: Imbd.com 

Will Win: Sam Rockwell (“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”) - Early in the awards season, Dafoe seemed like the contender to beat, seeing as he dominated this category amongst many critics’ groups for his role as a kind-hearted motel manager.  However, after the Golden Globes, that all began to change.  Rockwell pulled off a surprising win in this category for his role as a prejudicial cop in the titular small town.  Then, he went on to win at the Critics’ Choice Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards, and BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) Film Awards.  While he’s been in some notable films over the years, it looks like his career will reach a new peak with a guaranteed win come Oscar night.

Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

Should Win: Christopher Plummer (“All the Money in the World”) - The narrative leading up to Plummer’s role in director Ridley Scott’s crime-thriller became one of the most-memorable Hollywood stories of 2017.  After sexual misconduct allegations came out against Kevin Spacey, who was originally cast in the role of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty and had already filmed his scenes, he was cut out of the movie, the role had to be recast, and the character’s scenes reshot.  Plummer (who was said to be Scott’s first choice for the part, but studio executives wanted a bigger name with Spacey), was cast, and he proceeded to film his scenes in 10 days.  The last-minute change paid off, as Plummer received nominations from the Golden Globes, BAFTAs, and now, the Academy.  With all of the behind-the-scenes drama, this movie could have easily been a disaster, but it all came together, and Plummer delivers a ferocious performance as the miserly and spiteful billionaire.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a chance at winning, but given that he received a nomination this big when all of the odds were against this movie before its release, that’s more than enough to compensate.

Best Supporting Actress: Mary J. Blige (“Mudbound”), Allison Janney (“I, Tonya”), Leslie Manville (“Phantom Thread”), Laurie Metcalf (“Lady Bird”), and Octavia Spencer (“The Shape of Water”)

Photo Credit: Imdb.com  

Will Win: Allison Janney (“I, Tonya”) - While Janney had a few wins with the critics’ groups going into awards season, she wasn’t quite the frontrunner for this category.  However, that all changed after she picked up a win at the Golden Globes for her role as the abusive mother of figure skater Tonya Harding.  Janney then received wins as the Critics’ Choice Awards, SAG Awards, and BAFTAs.  After her steamrolling success on the awards circuit, the Oscar’s hers.

Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

Should Win: Laurie Metcalf (“Lady Bird”) - When the awards season began, Metcalf had similar luck to that of Willem Dafoe, as she became the favorite to win in her category after earning many wins from critics’ groups for her emotional performance as the mother of a teenage girl who’s on the brink of adulthood.  But, now that Janney has won the big four awards leading up to the Oscars, Metcalf’s chances at a triumph are pretty much gone.  Although I enjoyed Janney’s performance, Metcalf’s work stuck with me more because of how well she conveys her character’s unconditional love for her family and her struggle as she tries her best to keep them afloat during tough times.  It’s a subdued, yet heartrending performance that I would love to see win, even if it’s unlikely at this point.

Best Actor: Timothée Chalamet (“Call Me by Your Name”), Daniel Day-Lewis (“Phantom Thread”), Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out”), Gary Oldman (“Darkest Hour”), and Denzel Washington (“Roman J. Israel, Esq.”)

Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

Will Win: Gary Oldman (“Darkest Hour”) - Ever since this film premiered at the Telluride Film Festival back in September, Oldman became the frontrunner in this category for his battle-ready performance as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and he remained as such during the season.  Portraying a historical figure is usually the type of performance that wins over the Academy, but that’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy his performance, as you have to give him credit for diving as far as he does into the role.  Actually, if you went into the movie without seeing any advertisements for it, you probably wouldn’t have recognized that it was Oldman behind all of the makeup.  He had a bit of luck with the critics’ groups, but he fared even better with the major awards shows, proving victorious at the Golden Globes, Critics’ Choice Awards, SAG Awards, and BAFTAs.  After all of this, it’s impossible to think that the winner here will be anyone else.

Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

Should Win: Timothée Chalamet (“Call Me by Your Name”) - Although I liked Oldman’s performance, Chalamet’s role as a young man who falls in love with his father’s research assistant is the one that was the most-affecting for me.  It’s a more-subtle performance, one where a lot of it comes down to Chalamet’s facial expressions, which he strongly exhibits in the film’s last few minutes where the camera focuses just on him as a range of emotions displays across his face.  It’s a role that captures what it’s like to be in a relationship that means the world to you, one where you would do anything to keep it alive, and Chalamet brings that heartache and need for connection whenever he’s on screen.  He received a few wins from critics’ groups, but sadly, it doesn’t look like he will be winning an Oscar this year.  However, given the fact that he’s the third-youngest Best Actor nominee of all time proves that his career is going to be nothing short of illustrious, and he’s sure to receive many more nominations in the future.

Best Actress: Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water”), Frances McDormand (“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”), Margot Robbie (“I, Tonya”), Saoirse Ronan (“Lady Bird”), and Meryl Streep (“The Post”)

Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

Will Win: Frances McDormand (“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”) - This year, Best Actress was looking to be the most-competitive of the four acting races, as there were many stellar performances that were worthy of a nomination.  Although there are only five nominees, there are at least five others who could have gotten in as well.  However, the five nominees have been chosen, and McDormand is the frontrunner and the likely winner.  Her role as a mother searching for her daughter’s killer has received a Golden Globe, Critics’ Choice Award, SAG Award, and BAFTA, so her path to a second Oscar is pretty much secured.

Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

Should Win: Margot Robbie (“I, Tonya”) - “I, Tonya” was one of the my favorite films of 2017, in large part due to Robbie’s performance as Tonya Harding, as she’s able to make a sympathetic character out of the controversial figure skater.  She accomplishes this by perfecting Harding’s frustration at not getting a fair shot in the skating world and being judged unfairly for her troubled upbringing, and this helps us feel emotionally invested in her character and makes us understand why she becomes involved in the Nancy Kerrigan scandal.  As superb as Robbie is, she hasn’t had much luck from the critics’ groups or the big awards shows, which is a shame because her work in this film resulted in some of the most-dynamic acting in film last year.  If you haven’t had a chance to see Robbie’s commanding performance, change that as soon as possible.

Best Director: Paul Thomas Anderson (“Phantom Thread”), Guillermo del Toro (“The Shape of Water”), Greta Gerwig (“Lady Bird”), Christopher Nolan (“Dunkirk”), and Jordan Peele (“Get Out”)

Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

Will Win: Guillermo del Toro (“The Shape of Water”) - Although its Best Picture chances might be somewhat up in the air, one major Oscar that “The Shape of Water” is sure to win is this, seeing as del Toro has already won Best Director from several critics’ groups, at the Golden Globes, Critics’ Choice Awards, and the BAFTAs, as well as the Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing-Feature Film.  His Cold War-era fairytale also received 13 nominations, which is the most of any movie at the Oscars this year.  Given how multiple aspects of this film have been praised, the Academy will want to honor the director who brought it all together.

Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

Should Win: Christopher Nolan (“Dunkirk”) - I would love for either del Toro or Nolan to win, so this was a bit of a tough category for me in which to choose my preference.  However, I’ll have to go with Nolan for his masterful and visceral WWII film, which follows the evacuation of Allied soldiers on the beaches of Dunkirk and is told from three perspectives: land, sea, and air.  By using an expert blend of music, cinematography, and editing, Nolan delivered one of the most-gripping moviegoing experiences of 2017 and created another film whose fullest impact can only be appreciated on a big screen.

Best Picture: “Call Me by Your Name,” “Darkest Hour,” “Dunkirk,” “Get Out,” “Lady Bird,” “Phantom Thread,” “The Post,” “The Shape of Water,” and “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” 

Photo Credit: Imdb.com  

Will Win: “The Shape of Water” - Of the six biggest categories, this is the one where there’s a bit of unpredictability, as the winner could either be Guillermo del Toro’s “The Shape of Water,” which won Best Picture at the Critics’ Choice Awards and the Producers Guild of America award for Best Theatrical Motion Picture, or Martin McDonagh’s “Three Billboards,” which won Best Picture at the BAFTAs and Best Motion Picture-Drama at the Golden Globes.  Considering this, the scale could tip in favor of “The Shape of Water,” seeing as it’s the most-nominated film at the Oscars; it won at the PGA, which is a good indicator of what will win Best Picture, as it matched up eight times in the past 10 years; and the lack of a Best Director nomination for “Three Billboards.”  However, there’s always the possibility that the Academy will want to honor both films by awarding “The Shape of Water” with Best Director and “Three Billboards” with Best Picture.  Although I won’t be surprised if “Three Billboards” pulls off a win, I can still see “The Shape of Water” being the recipient of the night’s top prize.

Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

Should Win: “Call Me by Your Name” - Although the strongest chance that Luca Guadagnino’s film has at Oscar gold is a win for Best Adapted Screenplay, I would love to see it win Best Picture.  There were many movies this year that I loved, but “Call Me by Your Name” was the only one where, as soon as it was over, I wanted to run back in the theater and watch it again. As my favorite movie of 2017, I’ve seen it twice, and I would have seen it 10 more times in theaters if I had the opportunity.  Seeing as the film received the second-lowest amount of nominations out of the nine Best Picture nominees (tying with “Get Out” at four), the odds of this film pulling an upset are slim to none.  A Best Picture win for this film would be terrific, but I’m glad that it at least got this far, as it deserves to be ranked among the best of 2017.  It’s a romantic, heartbreaking, and unforgettable coming-of-age journey that must be experienced.

Be sure to catch the 90th Academy Awards this Sunday, March 4, on ABC at 8:00 p.m.!

In the Wake of a Kidnapping, Greed Gets in the Way of a Rescue

Michelle Williams in "All the Money in the World"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

The behind-the-scenes narrative of Ridley Scott’s crime-thriller, “All the Money in the World,” became one of the most-memorable Hollywood stories of 2017.  After sexual misconduct allegations were made against Kevin Spacey, who was originally cast in the role of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty, he was cut out of the already-finished movie, and the role had to be recast and the character’s scenes reshot.  Christopher Plummer (who was said to be Scott’s first choice for the part, until studio executives persuaded him to go with a bigger name), was cast, and he proceeded to film his scenes in 10 days.

Because of these unexpected events, this movie could have easily been a disaster, but it all comes together with some strong performances, a nail-biting true story, and tense direction from Scott.

In 1973, 16-year-old John Paul Getty III, (Charlie Plummer, no relation to Christopher Plummer), grandson of oil magnate J. Paul Getty, is kidnapped in Rome by an organized gang, who demands a ransom of $17 million.  When John’s mother, Gail Harris (Michelle Williams), asks her father-in-law if he can pay the ransom, he refuses and instead hires his negotiator and former CIA operative Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg) to track down John Paul and his abductors.

Michelle Williams is one of the most-talented actresses of her generation, as she’s able to bring such emotional power to her roles and has the ability to change a movie with just one scene, which she exemplified last year in “Manchester by the Sea.”  For all of Williams’ performances that I’ve seen, she never feels the need to overact in any of her roles, always manages to provide the perfect amount of vigor to make her characters memorable.  In her latest role, Williams does well in displaying the anxiety of the scenario, one that a parent shouldn’t have to experience, but also shows us the iron will of a mother who will do anything to get her son back and refuses to let the reporters see her cry.  This is a performance that will keep you caught up in the tension of the situation, such is the strength of Williams’ acting abilities.

Christopher Plummer delivers a fierce performance as the money-grubbing, spiteful billionaire.  The way he assimilates into the role is astonishing, considering the small amount of time he had to prepare.  Given how quickly Plummer was able to reshoot his scenes, I was thinking that his character would only have about 10 minutes or so of screen time, but it turns out that he has much more than that, which makes this accomplishment all the more impressive.  However, we probably shouldn’t be surprised that a world-class actor like Plummer is able to tackle this role at a moment’s notice with such menacing power.  His character’s a shadow of greed that hangs over the film, and whenever Plummer’s on screen, you feel the oppressiveness of J. Paul Getty’s miserly ways, all of which are conveyed through Plummer’s subdued intensity.

While Mark Wahlberg provides okay work, it’s one of his usual performances where some of his lines have that odd cool-guy inflection that makes bits of his dialogue sound funny when they shouldn’t be.  And it doesn’t help that the performances from Williams and (Christopher) Plummer tower over his.

Despite being a young actor and relative unknown, Charlie Plummer does a terrific job at holding his own in a production from a top-tier filmmaker like Scott.  If his work in this film is anything to go by, Plummer has a strong career ahead of him.

Romain Duris provides a great supporting performance as Cinquanta, one of Getty’s abductors.  I won’t go into too much detail, but the movie constructs an intriguing relationship between him and Getty, as we see that Cinquanta begins to care for Getty and turns out to be more of a father figure to him than Getty’s own father and grandfather. 

The screenplay by David Scarpa, which is based on John Pearson’s 1995 book, “Painfully Rich: The Outrageous Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Heirs of J. Paul Getty,” goes between the past and present throughout the first quarter of the movie, allowing us to learn about the Getty family and how J. Paul Getty rose to stratospheric riches, as well as the reasons behind his obscene greed and materialism, with one of the best flashbacks being when J. Paul Getty walks with John Paul through some ruins and gives his “blood of emperors” monologue.  Once the flashbacks are finished, the present story transitions between the plights of John Paul Getty III and Gail, giving us a detailed look into Gail’s search and what John Paul experiences during his time as an abductee.  

Ridley Scott’s able to capture the urgency of the situation as he keeps the movie fast-paced with its race-against-clock scenario.  However, his main accomplishment for the film is how well he’s able to deliver a cohesive movie after having to do the last-minute reshoots, which he incorporates seamlessly into the movie.  All of this presents one of the most-impressive filmmaking feats of the last few years, and you can bet your money on that.

Final grade: A-

When Life Gets Difficult, a Man Begins Looking at the Smaller Things

Hong Chau and Matt Damon in "Downsizing"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

Science-fiction is a genre that’s ripe with potential for social and political commentary, as it provides the opportunity to create new worlds on screen that can parallel our own current affairs.  When done right, you get an accomplished feat like 1956’s “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”  When done wrong, you get something unsubtle like 2013’s “Elysium.”  

It takes a skilled director to be able to avoid heavy-handedness when crafting something that’s topical.  Unfortunately, when it comes to Alexander Payne’s sci-fi comedy-drama, “Downsizing,” the filmmaking talent he’s displayed in the past is lost in an unfocused plot and bland characters.

In the not-too-distance future, scientists have figured out revolutionary and eco-friendly lifestyle called “downsizing,” an irreversible process that shrinks people down to five inches, allowing them to live in communities with other downsized individuals, complete with financial benefits.  15 years after the discovery, Paul and Audrey Safranek (Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig), who are experiencing monetary troubles, decide to go through the process themselves.  When Paul wakes up from the procedure, he finds out that Audrey backed out at the last minute.  He then must reassess his life as he moves into his downsized community.

Matt Damon is an actor who’s impressed audiences with a variety of roles over the past couple of decades in films like “Good Will Hunting,” “The Talented Mr. Ripley,” the “Bourne” trilogy, and “The Departed,” among many others.  However, this is probably the first time where I was bored with one of his performances.  The role is blandly written, and he seems to just go along with that blandness and not add anything to the character that makes him memorable.

Most of the supporting cast, such as Wiig, Christoph Waltz, and Jason Sudeikis, give decent performances, but they all share the same misfortunate as Damon, in that none of them are given much that’s special to do.  

Hong Chau, who plays a Vietnamese political activist who befriends Paul, is a character who has the potential to be complex; however, most of her time on screen becomes bogged down by the film using her broken English for laughs, instead of giving her character much depth.  Hopefully, her next film role is something more layered, because the instances where she gets to show her talent are some of the film’s very few highlights.

The screenplay by Payne and Jim Taylor, who frequently collaborate, doesn’t quite know what it wants to do, as it presents a couple of social/political messages and doesn’t do much with either of them.  Despite the boring characters, I’ll admit that the story has an intriguing first act, where the environmental message doesn’t come on too strong and includes an original angle with which to address the issue at hand.  However, the second and third acts don’t expand on that angle in any noteworthy fashion.

Not only do these allegories become groan-inducing in their unsubtle nature once the first act ends, but one of said allegories (which comes in the second act) is about the less-fortunate living in the slum-like outskirts of the downsized community, and it proves to be rather similar to the themes of “Elysium,” with Damon playing the “white savior” in both of these movies.  This isn’t only an unnecessary aspect of the film, but Payne and Taylor don’t even bother to add any insight to it that we haven’t seen before.  If you want your movie to go in the direction of current-events, it’s better to pick one subject and stick with it to make an engaging story, instead of losing your focus by including multiple messages and not having anything memorable to say about any of them.

As a director, Payne handles the drama okay at times, but it usually suffers from the film’s heavy-handedness, and that heavy-handedness doesn’t allow him to embrace the delightful strangeness and laughs that the narrative’s scenario can provide.  The humor comes across fine in the first third, but for the rest of the movie, the comedy (however much of it the movie has at that point, anyway) is dragged down by the more-dramatic portions that feel out of place with the humorous premise.

Payne might have had admirable intentions, but “Downsizing” isn’t up to the standards of the talent that’s involved.

Final grade: C

Exploring the Fabric of a Fashion Designer’s Mind

Daniel Day-Lewis and Vicky Krieps in "Phantom Thread"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

Paul Thomas Anderson’s a writer and director who’s known for his films that are narratively ambitious, having complex stories that encourage discussions afterwards.  He’s done this with films like “Inherent Vice,” “The Master,” “There Will Be Blood,” “Magnolia,” and “Boogie Nights.”  These films are all memorable in their own way, each with a story that’s populated by distinctive characters.  He’s the kind of director where, whenever he releases a new movie, you know you’re in for something unique.

For his latest drama, “Phantom Thread,” he delves into the world of fashion.  And, sure enough, he finds a provocative story to tell, which is bolstered by a trio of masterful performances, including the supposed final film role for the legendary Daniel Day-Lewis.

Reynolds Woodcock (Day-Lewis) is a clothing designer in 1950s London, where he dresses the members of Britain’s high society, while his sister, Cyril (Leslie Manville), takes care of the day-to-day operations.  As Reynolds is on a getaway, he meets a young waitress named Alma Elson (Vicky Krieps), to whom he becomes attached.  He soon brings her back to his home/studio to be one of his models.  Soon, their relationship proves to be more mentally tasking than either one of them predicted.

Watching Daniel Day-Lewis is a rather bittersweet experience because he’s an absolute titan of the screen, but you know that you might not get to see him in another new project after this.  He’s very selective of his roles, usually having a gap of about five years in between movies, and since this is his second collaboration with Anderson, 10 years after teaming with him to give audiences the ferocity that’s “There Will Be Blood,” this duo brings wonders to the screen once again.  However, what’s great about his acting in this film is that, even though it might his last performance, he doesn't try to make it as grand as possible.  Instead, it’s subdued work, as he’s an artist who must keep his calm in order to concentrate on his craft.  In the scenes where he becomes irritated by some of Alma’s actions and traits, you can feel the annoyance that’s bubbling underneath his calm demeanor, but he knows he has to remain levelheaded in order to keep his ideas in order.  It’s a performance that’s perfect for Day-Lewis because just as he’s committed to getting his characters just right, his character is the same when trying to perfect his clothing designs.  Reynolds is a reflection of Day-Lewis and the commitment to his work, and that’s what makes this role the perfect (rumored) send-off for him.

Vicky Krieps gives a stunning performance as Reynolds’ new model and romantic partner.  I won’t give much away about her role, but it’s a character who becomes something you don’t think she will.  It’s a radical change that Alma undergoes, but with her character’s circumstances, as well as Krieps’ approach to the role, the drastic change is made believable.

Leslie Manville delivers terrific work as the quietly combative Cyril.  Her character is one who knows how her brother functions, and also has Alma’s best interests at heart.  With this, Manville displays a toughness in Cyril as her character works to keep Reynolds’ behavior in line, providing an ability to verbally spar with him while adding an occasional touch of humor to her directness, particularly in her “Don’t pick a fight with me” scene. 

Although it takes a while for the plot to kick in, Anderson’s screenplay soon begins to unravel the mounting psychological drama and suspense.  The more we see of Reynolds and Alma’s relationship, the more we see the toxicity that begins to fester underneath their seemingly idyllic world, making this a fascinating look of an artist and his muse whose relationship begins to strain them both.

One of the intriguing aspects about this story is how, because most of the other characters that appear throughout the film are minor, the narrative spends pretty much all of its focus on Reynolds, Alma, and Cyril, presenting palpable tension among the three of them as you begin to wonder where each of them will end up at the film’s conclusion.

When you’re watching the movie, it may seem as though Anderson has written Reynolds and Alma in such a way that renders them unsympathetic.  While you may feel like this is the case at first, their significant flaws make their troubled connection so compelling to witness because even though their actions are ill-judged, it makes sense narratively that these characters would commit such actions.

As a director, Anderson is accomplished at analyzing the distinct settings that his characters inhabit and finding compelling stories within said settings, be it the criminal underworld of Los Angeles in “Inherent Vice,” a religious cult in “The Master,” the twentieth-century oil business in “There Will Be Blood,” the deep, interconnected stories of San Fernando Valley in “Magnolia,” or the adult-film industry in “Boogie Nights.”  As you begin watching one of his movies, you know there’s going to be a lot going on, with a good deal of it being under the surface of the film’s events, and it all leaves you to ponder over the meaning behind the story.  Just like Anderson’s previous films, such is the case for “Phantom Thread.”  Besides the vivid stories and masterful acting his movies always offer, he’s also never one to skimp on the technical aspects, with the cinematography and music being two of the film’s highlights.  

Seeing as Anderson displays carefulness when crafting his films, as a clothing designer does with the carefulness of threading a needle, he continues to prove why he’s one of our best American directors working today.

Final grade: A-

Paddington Returns with Another Warm, Cinematic Bear Hug

Paddington (voiced by Ben Whishaw) in "Paddington 2"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

Three years ago, director Paul King gave audiences a charming film adaptation of Michael Bond’s (who passed away in June 2017) beloved, literary creation, Paddington.  Following the story of a young bear who travels to England from the jungles of Peru, King’s “Paddington” stayed true to the spirit of the source material and created a movie that both children and adults enjoyed.

King now returns to bring us “Paddington 2,” a sequel that manages to top the wonderful original.  With a talented cast, skilled direction, a heartfelt story, and gorgeous visuals, King once again delivers a film that cherishes its titular hero’s legacy and realizes how much Paddington means to those who have fallen in love with his stories on the page.

After the events of the first film, Paddington (voiced by Ben Whishaw) is enjoying his life in England with Mr. and Mrs. Brown (Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins), their children, Jonathan (Samuel Joslin) and Judy (Madeleine Harris), and their maid, Mrs. Bird (Julie Walters).  With his Aunt Lucy’s (voiced by Imelda Staunton) 100th birthday approaching, Paddington decides to get a job so he can raise enough money to buy a vintage pop-up book of London to send to his aunt in Peru.  When it’s stolen by a washed-up actor named Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant), Paddington is thought to be the culprit and is sent to jail.  The Brown family then has to try to clear Paddington’s name and figure out Phoenix’s purpose for stealing the book.

Ben Whishaw provides splendid voice work for Paddington.  He gives Paddington a gentleness and warmth that makes you want to reach through the screen and embrace him.  His voice work is matched with beautiful visual effects for Paddington’s character, with the CGI being able to give him a range of emotions that help bring him to life and make him seem more than just computer-generated visuals.

What’s great about the Brown family in these films is how none of the family members are at odds with each other for clichéd and comedic purposes.  They’re still comedic, but it’s because of the situations in which they find themselves, all while keeping their strong, familial dynamic alive throughout the movie.  

Other than the cast members portraying the Brown family, “Paddington 2” also provides tremendous talent for its supporting characters, just like in the original.  Besides the return of Jim Broadbent as Mr. Gruber, the kind-hearted antique-shop owner, the film welcomes the new additions of Hugh Grant and Brendan Gleeson.  Grant looks as though he’s having a blast as the villainous, self-admiring actor, and Gleeson’s terrific as the prison’s gruff chef who takes Paddington under his wing.

The live-action cast is so superb that even in the scenes without Paddington, the movie never becomes dull, as there are many talented actors and actresses in the ensemble.  Even though this isn’t a blockbuster-sized children’s movie like the “Harry Potter” films, the cast members seem committed to giving Paddington the adaptation that he deserves, and their engagement to the material helps us become more involved with the story.

The screenplay by King and Simon Farnaby isn’t big in a narrative sense, but that’s not a flaw by any means because this is a story that doesn’t feel the need to use Paddington’s popularity to do anything overblown.  Instead, King and Farnaby decide to just have simple fun with him and place him in a low-stakes, yet endearing adventure.

As a director, King gives us a special, magical movie that’s strengthened by the accomplished acting, direction, screenplay, music, visual effects, and cinematography, all of which elevates this sequel from being a disposable children’s film.  As with the first movie, you can tell that “Paddington 2” wasn’t made with the purpose of making money by just coasting on the titular character’s name recognition, but was meant to give us a movie that puts so much dedication to getting everything right about Michael Bond’s timeless creation and capturing its essence.  He would be proud at the care and respect that went into making this film.

A couple of times in the movie, Paddington quotes his aunt by saying, “If we’re kind and polite, the world will be right.”  Well, I think that the world is now a little better with this film.

Final grade: A