AJGo85

Promising Young Woman is the rare kind of movie that remains engrossing and even exciting in its more uncomfortable moments, of which there are many. Revenge movies are intertwined with, and can’t help but exploit, violence in one way or another: tragic violence leads to righteous violence. As the premise for an action movie, they are usually pretty entertaining. For the icky and loathsome **** subgenre, the result, more often than not, is usually grim and joyless. However, the debut film from writer-director Emerald Fennell is a different kind of revenge movie; in fact, it is a different kind of movie all around. To describe this film as simply a revenge picture, or a dark comedy, or a social issue movie, or a thriller would be a disservice. It is all those things and more, much more. Just like its main character, Promising Young Woman plays with expectations to great effect. This is is easily one of the best films of 2020. Carey Mulligan gives an absolutely incredible performance as Cassie, a 30-year-old medical school dropout with a peculiar hobby. On certain nights she dons a completely out of character outfit, goes out to a club or bar, and pretends to be falling down drunk. Without fail, a man will offer to take her home… or back to their place. Once they are alone and the man begins to take advantage of the nearly passed out Cassie, she reveals that she is not drunk at all. They have been caught, and what she does next is not what you might expect. The movie becomes something really special when the revenge plot kicks in. A chance meeting with someone from her medical school days spurs Cassie to give certain people from her past their overdue comeuppance for an ignored crime. The film reveals slowly, piece by piece, the events in Cassie’s past that set her on her current path. Fennell’s screenplay spares us flashbacks or exposition dumps. Cassie becomes more and more layered with each bit of information revealed and Mulligan’s performance becomes more complex and interesting as well. Cassie goes to some dark places and does unlikeable things, but Mulligan always holds our interest if not our sympathy. As smart as I think Fennell’s screenplay and direction are, I also think that Promising Young Woman does not work without Carey Mulligan. Her Best Actress Oscar nomination is well deserved. Cassie’s revenge targets are numbered, literally, with roman numerals. You might be reminded of The Bride’s list of revenge targets in Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill or The Bride’s list of revenge targets in François Truffaut’s The Bride Wore Black. While those women only had murder on their minds, Cassie’s revenge for her targets is far less violent, but far more devastating. Cassie’s goal is not what you would expect from decades of movies in which a woman is wronged or abused, toughens up, then has a physically violent revenge. What happens in Promising Young Woman is so much more interesting and, in many ways, more disturbing. Promising Young Woman’s valid commentary on **** culture and those that participate in it or look the other way and society’s attitudes towards the abuse of women is so interwoven into the story that the film never feels didactic. Even in its darkest moments, Promising Young Woman is never dour or grim or dreadful. There are great moments of tension and unease and it has difficult scenes and difficult characters, but the film itself is not difficult to watch. As Roger Ebert would say, “no good movie is depressing.” There are moments of comedy, both light and dark, that break some of the tension and offer some relief but they also enhance the tone of the scenes. It is a delicate balance but well executed. The shifts from light to dark, comedy to drama, are stealthy and believable thanks to Fennell’s deft direction. Her sharp and clever screenplay takes turns and then turns again and every turn is challenging and intriguing. Fennell's Oscar nominations for Best Director and Original Screenplay are very well deserved. It is impressive and wonderful that everything in Promising Young Woman works as well as it does. I wish more movies were this daring and inventive.

A title like Judas and the Black Messiah tells you not only the kind of relationship the main characters will have but also how it will end. It also sets up the characters as figures of mythic and grand proportions. Fortunately, the approach by director Shaka King, the Oscar nominated screenplay, and the excellent cast emphasize the human elements of this true story. It seems as though everyone involved in making this film knew there was little that they had to do to convey the importance of the story of Chicago Black Panther chairman Fred Hampton and the events that led to his death. This may sound like a heavy film given the subject matter, and at times it certainly is, but, in addition to the people and events depicted, the craft and skill on display in every aspect of the movie make it well worth watching. I was reminded of a Roger Ebert quote: “No good movie is depressing; all bad movies are depressing.” Judas and the Black Messiah is a good movie. The film opens with Bill O’Neal (LaKeith Stanfield) finding himself in an unfortunately ironic predicament. He has been caught by the FBI for impersonating an FBI agent in order to steal cars from unsuspecting bar patrons. Now, real FBI Agent Mitchell (Jesse Plemons) offers O’Neal the choice between going to prison or infiltrating the Black Panthers and becoming an informant. O’Neal takes the deal, eventually working his way to becoming the head of security for the Panthers and the driver for Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya). As he passes information to the FBI, O’Neal also comes to believe in the cause of the Panthers and finds himself greatly conflicted. Stanfield has great emotional scenes with dialogue and quiet moments trying to hold back his conflicted emotions. His character is always under stress, always presenting one persona to Hampton and the Panthers and another to the FBI. His betrayal of Hampton is by no means excused, but Stanfield shows us the emotional and mental state of the man driven to it. As good as Stanfield is, the real standout is Daniel Kaluuya as Fred Hampton. He captures the confidence and charisma of the 21-year-old activist, but the screenplay also allows us to see him in private moments like him reciting along to a record of a Malcolm X speech to practice his own oratory skills. Dominique Fishback as Debra Johnson also gives a great performance as Hampton’s fiancé. When she first attends a Black Panther meeting, she is immediately captivated and enchanted by Hampton’s speech. Kaluuya’s performance makes her attraction both to his words and his presence easy to understand. His scenes with her allow for quiet, intimate moments that further show this figure from recent history as a real person. Kaluuya is the frontrunner for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, in part because he is actually a co-lead along with Stanfield, who is also nominated in the Supporting Actor category. True stories can make for great films, but great films based on true stories do not necessarily make for great history. I do not doubt the authenticity of the characters or major events depicted or the FBI plot that led to Hampton’s death. I have read and seen enough documentaries to know that J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI was motivated by his serious but mistaken belief that the Civil Rights movement was being controlled by communists and had to be stopped before it destroyed the country (here Hoover is played by Martin Sheen in a performance too small to be especially good or bad, however, his makeup is especially bad). Judas and the Black Messiah is the best kind of based-on-a-true-story film: it engaged me with the story and characters, giving me a real sense of what things were like for them, and it makes me want to learn more about the events and people depicted. The film ends with documentary footage and these short clips actually enhance the emotions of the movie instead of undercutting them. If you already know the story of Fred Hampton and the FBI’s insidious campaign against him and the Black Panthers in the late 1960’s, the reason to watch Judas and the Black Messiah is for the incredible performances from Daniel Kaluuya and Lakeith Stanfield. This isn’t just another biopic or a reenactment. At times it plays like a tense thriller in the same vein as Martin Scorsese’s The Departed. At other times it plays like a quiet drama. At every moment we are made aware of the social imbalances and injustices that motivate Hampton and the Panthers and come, too late, to move O’Neal as well. It is unfortunate and frustrating that these social imbalances and injustices are still being dealt with today. Judas and the Black Messiah comes as close as any movie does to bringing history to life.

While hanging out with musician friends at shows I noticed that before playing, they all put in earplugs. I wondered why since I thought this would make it difficult for them to hear each other. This was very much not the case. If you’ve ever been to a loud concert, it is way, way louder on stage. So, the premise of Sound of Metal, about a working-class heavy metal drummer whose world is turned upside down by sudden and profound hearing loss, is frighteningly believable. Thankfully, my friends still have their hearing. The path that Ruben, played by Riz Ahmed with one of the best performances of the year, finds himself on is abrupt and unexpected to put it mildly. Likewise, the film never quite goes where you expect, but you believe every moment and every emotion. I wasn’t expecting Sound of Metal to receive 6 Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, but I am very happy that it did because I cannot think of many movies from 2020 that I enjoyed more. Faced with the loss of his hearing, his livelihood, and potentially his relationship, Ruben also fears losing his four years of sobriety from heroin. In need of immediate and special help, his girlfriend and bandmate, Lou (Olivia Cooke), takes him to a sobriety house especially for the deaf. The house is run by Joe (Paul Raci), a deaf Vietnam veteran and recovering alcoholic who gives off the impression that his inner peace only came after a hard struggle. He takes Ruben under his wing but tells him that his program is about finding a solution to the problem in his mind, not his deafness. The scenes of Ruben at the deaf sober house and learning how to live without hearing are interesting and very engaging. Director Darius Marder’s gentle approach to the characters and Ruben’s journey gives us the feeling that we are getting a window into a real community with real people, not participating in a kind of cultural tourism. As much as I admire the approach taken by Marder’s direction and the screenplay he co-wrote with his brother Abraham, Sound of Metal works so well because of Riz Ahmed’s performance. This is not a case of an actor showing off their talents by playing a character with a disability. Ahmed plays a full range of emotions but the real pathos comes from his facial expressions, especially his expressive eyes. Most important of all to the movie’s success, he is not afraid to show big vulnerability on screen or show just how afraid and anxious someone in this situation would feel, especially if they were a musician. Though we see Ruben getting on well at the sober house and with the larger deaf community, he still wants to have cochlear implant surgery which he believes will allow him to return to his old life. This is at odds with Joe’s belief that being deaf is not a handicap or something to be fixed and leads to one of the most compelling and affecting scenes of the movie; one that likely earned Ahmed and Raci their Oscar nominations. It is easily one of the best moments in any movie I saw over the last year. I will admit that I was hesitant to watch Sound of Metal at first, despite its positive reviews, because a movie about a young musician going deaf seems like a heavy or even depressing movie. However, Sound of Metal ends up being an uplifting film without delving into melodrama or smarmy sentiment. Every aspect of this movie is low-key, allowing every moment to feel genuine. This is not the kind of movie with twists but it does have unexpected narrative turns which are best left to be discovered along with Ruben. All of the unexpected places, both physical and emotional, the story takes us are what make it memorable. The empathy in the performances from Paul Raci, Olivia Cooke, Mathieu Amalric, and, most of all, Riz Ahmed are what make it so moving. Sound of Metal is something special: a film so seemingly simple but deeply affecting. It is a character study so well executed that it transcends its premise and puts us so in tune with the main character that its final moments become spiritual, or philosophical, depending on your inclination.

The Trial of the Chicago 7 resonates as much as it does because even though it is a dramatization of events from 50 years ago, it feels like it could have been based on current events. I knew next to nothing about the Chicago 7 before watching this movie, but I also know that good movies don’t always make for good history. However, The Trial of the Chicago 7 does the best thing a movie based on an important true story can do: it gives me a strong sense of what things were like for the people involved and it makes me want to learn more. I have never cared much for Aaron Sorkin’s TV projects, but I have really enjoyed his film writing (A Few Good Men, The Social Network) and even his work as a director (Molly’s Game). As with Molly’s Game, Sorkin writes and directs, but it is clear that Sorkin the writer is at the helm. Aaron Sorkin is aware that his forte is writing speeches and debates and that awareness can also be his problem. This based-on-true-events courtroom drama is in many ways what you expect, but it is no less satisfying to watch. Protests against the Vietnam War at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago turned into riots and 7 people (actually 8) were arrested and charged with crossing state lines to intentionally start a riot, though, of course, this was not true. We see dramatizations of the trial, strategy sessions and arguments the 7 have with each other and their lawyer, and flashbacks of the events leading up to the protests turned riots and why that turn happened (it might be unfortunately no surprise or shock to find out that the police, not the accused 7, escalated the protests into riots). This is the epitome of an ensemble cast. Every role, major and minor, is a distinct one and played by recognizable name or face. It is an impressive and slightly distracting cast. When the defense team tracks down an important witness you spend the preceding scene wondering what celebrity will be waiting for them at the end of the hall. The standouts of the ensemble are Sacha Baron Cohen, who has earned a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for his performance in the very showy role of Abbie Hoffman, Mark Rylance as William Kunstler, the determined lawyer for the 7, and Frank Langella as the prejudiced, frustrating, and incompetent Judge Julius Hoffman. Eddie Redmayne gives a good performance as Tom Hayden, the head of Students for a Democratic Society, but his best scenes are his arguments/debates with Cohen as Abbie Hoffman. I really enjoyed their scenes together; both are on the same side and want to achieve the same goal but are on different paths. The 8th person on trial is Bobby Seale, the national chairman of the Black Panthers, played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II. who was not involved in the planning of any of the DNC protests but was charged nevertheless and lumped into the trial as part of the FBI’s campaign against the Panthers. The scenes with Seale are noteworthy not just for the injustice being dealt to him but for Mateen’s performance as well. Joseph Gordon Levitt plays the federal prosecutor and does a good job in a pretty restrained role. John Carol Lynch and others also turn in solid performances but in a cast this stacked it is difficult to stand out. The story of the Chicago 7 is perfect material for Sorkin. It allows for lengthy speeches, wordy arguments, memorable characters, and declarations about political and moral values. The runtime is just over two hours but for a dialogue heavy movie, it is well paced and engaging. I think Sorkin successfully makes this into something more than just another courtroom drama. The Trial of the Chicago 7 feels like a pageant at times but it is one that needs to be performed and is done so very well. This film doesn’t have the at times frenetic feel of Molly’s Game—which really feels like he was trying to recreate Danny Boyle’s lively aesthetic—or an especially distinct visual style. Here Sorkin lets the dialogue and performances shape the movie.

Minari feels both familiar and unique at the same time. It is certainly a special movie which I very much recommend. It has earned 6 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and I think it is deserving of the recognition and praise it has so far received. Writer-director Lee Isaac Chung based this story of a Korean family settling in rural Arkansas in the 1980’s to start a farm on his own similar childhood experiences. In dramatizing his own story, Chung has made a film that is personal and relatable even if you are not Korean, or a farmer, or an immigrant. If you’ve tried chasing any part of the American dream, you’ll recognize something in Minari. Stephen Yuen and Yeri Han play Jacob and Monica, a Korean couple who have just moved from California to Arkansas with their two young children, Anne and David, to pursue Jacob’s dream of having a big farm—like the Garden of Eden—that will thrive and allow the family to do the same. Monica is skeptical to say the least, especially when she sees the trailer on the plain plot of land that is to be their new home. Adding to her anxiety is David’s heart murmur and how far away they are from a city and a hospital. The arrival of Monica’s mother, Soonja, complicates some things (like the sleeping arrangement in the small trailer) and livens up others. Minari’s focus is on the relationship that shy 6-year-old David has with his outspoken grandmother, Soonja. This isn’t a cutesy movie about a little boy and his sassy grandma, though they certainly have that dynamic. David doesn’t like that she doesn’t act like a “real” grandma: she doesn’t bake cookies, she swears, watches wrestling, and drinks Mountain Dew. Yuh-jung Youn as Soonja steals every scene and is far and away the standout performer of the film. She has earned a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination and would be my choice to win if I were allowed to pick the winners. She isn’t just funny—which she is—or the character most out of place in this new home—which she is—but the emotions she stirs and her relationship with David are the heart of the movie. Alan Kim as David is just what you hope for in a child actor. He does not draw attention to himself and his behavior always comes across as natural, not contrived, even when he is playing a gross prank of his grandma. They share a wonderful, quiet scene together at a creek near the farm where she plants minari, a leafy vegetable; it is my favorite scene in the movie. Steven Yeun, nominated for the Best Actor Oscar, and Yeri Han work very well together as a believable married couple. He is determined but not bullheaded and she is not unsupportive or a nag but is justifiably feeling isolated and concerned. It is clear that they care for each other and even though they are at a place where their future together is uncertain, we do not feel that they have a bad marriage. Will Patton, a familiar face even if you don’t recognize his name, has a small role with a notable performance as the kindhearted but very eccentric local who gladly helps Jacob on the farm. He speaks in tongues randomly and, in a scene late in the movie, performs an exorcism that is simultaneously comical and emotional. The beautiful Oscar nominated score by Emile Mosseri would be my pick to win that category, again, if I were allowed to pick the winners. It is ethereal and enchanting and brimming with pathos. Chung has a tenderness in his direction and his screenplay—both are Oscar nominated—towards each of the characters and their points of view. My only real complaint is the plot contrivance that leads to the climax, but it is not a major strike against the movie because it drives the drama of the story forward and the final moments won me back easily. From start to finish Minari is filled with the kind of small, intimate and affecting moments that are so rarely done well on screen. Wonderful, wonderful Minari indeed.

An audience will generally accept whatever happens in the first 15 or 20 minutes of a movie to be true to the reality of the story no matter the genre or subject matter. This is when we are being introduced to the characters and their world. Even if a movie begins with a dream or a fantasy, it has told us what is real and what is not. The Father takes full advantage of this to put the audience in the mindset of Anthony, an elderly man with dementia. As you might imagine given the subject matter, this makes for a heavy viewing experience. The Father is that kind of movie that is well made and well-acted but cannot exactly be described as entertainment. The film begins with Anne (Olvia Coleman) meeting her father, Anthony (Anthony Hopkins), at his large, posh London apartment to tell him that she has met a man and will be moving to Paris soon, so she will not be able to look after him anymore. In the next scene Anthony finds a man in his apartment who he (and we) has never seen before claiming to be Anne’s husband. Anne returns from the market but Anthony does not recognize her. Neither do we. Now Anne is played by Olivia Williams and says she is not and never was moving to Paris. Director Florian Zeller, who, along with Chistopher Hampton, adapted The Father from his play, has us share in Anthony’s disorientation and confusion with very effective but simple techniques. Scenes repeat and loop back on themselves. It seems like this movie takes place over the same few days again and again. The Oscar nominated production design makes different apartments look the same but also different. The cinematography finds ways to shoot a room from different angles so we aren’t sure if we are in Anthony’s apartment or his daughter’s apartment. There is a general sense of a timeline (the editing also received an Oscar nomination), but we are never really sure where we are in the timeline. Anthony often points to a painting done by his other daughter, Lucy, but then one time it isn’t there anymore. We see the faint outline that something once hung there. Was the painting removed? Is he in a different apartment that never had the painting and hung something else there? It will come as no surprise that Anthony Hopkins gives not just a good or very good performance but a great one. His Best Actor Oscar nomination isn’t just a lifetime achievement placeholder. Anthony’s ever-changing mood and perspective requires Hopkins to be agitated, charming, confused, calm, lucid, frightened; often in the same scene. Yet, Hopkins does not use the role just to showcase his talents. Even in the most dramatic scenes his performance is still full of sympathy; we see Anthony the character first and the work of Anthony the actor later. Olivia Coleman is a great scene partner for Hopkins and does a great job conveying her emotions while trying to hold them back. The rest of the small cast is an impressive lineup of great performers: Olivia Williams, Rufus Sewell, Mark Gatiss, and Imogen Poots. The doubling and repetition of scenes and dialogue are indeed a clever approach to dramatizing the muddled perspective of a dementia sufferer. However, with this effect having been achieved so quickly and completely at the beginning of the film, after a while these techniques lose their power and even become annoying. The movie never gives us an objective reality even in scenes of Anne alone or with her husband. I understand the filmmaker wanting to keep us off kilter to fully convey Anthony’s perspective but there are moments where the film is not from his perspective, including Anne’s dream/nightmare. The final scene is what we presume it will be and is emotionally powerful. While appreciating The Father from an artistic and technical view, I kept wondering who this movie is for. I cannot imagine people who have really had Anne’s experience wanting to relive such devastating experiences. It is not especially grim or dour or mawkish, but it would still be a difficult watch for a movie night (definitely have something light queued up to watch afterward). There are other works of fiction and non-fiction about the effects of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease and the emotional toll it has on everyone involved, but I suppose this is the only one with an incredible performance from Anthony Hopkins.

If A Quiet Place is the horror movie based around not speaking, and Bird Box is the horror movie based around not seeing, then Pontypool is the horror movie based around not hearing. Its conceit is fresh and interesting and, while not without flaws, remains haunting and unsettling. Pontypool has never fully left my mind since I first saw it two years ago. It has been on my mind a lot since March 2020. There are films with more violent and disturbing imagery that I’m recommending this Shocktober, but this is the only one that I hesitated in recommending at all. It didn’t occur to me in 2018 but it is clear now that Pontypool, like 28 Days Later, is not a zombie movie. It is a pandemic horror movie. Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) is a cowboy hat wearing, washed up radio shock jock reduced to doing morning news for a rural town in Ontario: Pontypool. Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle) is the morning show producer, who tries to keep Grant on track, reminding him that people just want their news and weather and don’t want to be antagonized. Sydney’s assistant Laurel-Ann (Georgina Reilly), is a young veteran that served in Afghanistan. These are the main characters, and, aside from a few callers and visitors to the station, the only characters. Once Grant arrives at the radio station, he and Sydney and Laurel-Ann slowly realize that the strange violent events overwhelming the town have trapped them in the station. The film unfolds over a matter of hours on a frigid and snowy Valentine’s Day in one location, more or less. Before the sun is even up, the radio station begins receiving reports of strange and violent behavior in Pontypool. There is a hostage situation and a riot at a doctor’s office and military vehicles in the streets. We see none of this and no other news source is reporting the events. Sydney thinks that they are being pranked but the influx of reports and a call from the “sunshine chopper” reporter (who actually just reports from a hill overlooking the town) make it clear that something sinister is wreaking havoc and spreading. Those people acting strange and attacking others are also chanting and babbling incoherently, repeating the same word or phrase again and again. Mazzy and Sydney translate a message in French warning people to avoid contact with loved ones and the English language. The sinister force at work is a strange virus that turns people into mindless zombies repeating phrases like: “A simple kind of sample” or “I’m not missing Mr. Mazzy.” The explanation for the virus comes in one of the film’s biggest contrivances, Dr. Mendez (Hrant Alianak), who breaks into the radio station and explains his theory on the virus. The idea he presents, that the virus spreads through understanding certain infected words, is what sets Pontypool apart from other virus/zombie movies. It's an intriguing concept. As Mazzy puts it, “How do you not understand a word. How do you make it strange?” Pontypool would work equally well as a stage or radio play. There are scenes of blood and zombie attacks (for lack of a better term) but almost no pop-up scares. This film relies on the sheer talent of its leads reacting to the news they hear and the little they see while stuck inside to create suspense and tension. Stephen McHattie and Lisa Houle don’t just carry the movie, they make it as good as it is; the premise does not work without their top-notch performances. I wouldn’t say that Pontypool falls apart in the third act exactly, but its intentions become muddled. Even as the characters are executing their plan it is unclear just exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Still, the tension is high and I was too caught up in their climactic performances to be concerned with the details. I am even more puzzled by the epilogue but equally intrigued for the same reason. Even with its flaws, Pontypool is a surprising and at times mesmerizing small scale horror movie that is unsettling and frightening not because of any intense visuals or effects but because of the overwhelming situation and ideas thrust upon the characters.

The 2020 film The Invisible Man is not a remake of the classic 1930’s Universal Monster movie starring Claude Rains and directed by James Whale, or even a new adaptation of the H.G. Wells novel. In fact, aside from sharing a title and the basic concept of a sinister man that is invisible, this film has nearly nothing in common with the H.G. Wells novel. This frees up writer-director Leigh Whannell to create a wholly fresh approach to the story of a mad scientist that makes himself invisible. Unlike the Wells story or the film Hollow Man, this story focuses not on the scientist but on his victim. Elizabeth Moss stars as Cecilia, whose partner, Adrian, is a controlling and abusive tech genius. In a suspenseful opening scene, she makes her escape from his luxurious compound-like West Coast mansion. She is hiding out with a friend (Aldis Hodge) and suffering through PTSD when she receives news that Adrian has killed himself. Cecilia finally begins to feel safe and free when unusual and suspicious occurrences begin. Adrian’s research was in optics, so it does not take her long to realize that he has somehow made himself invisible to continue to control and torment her. The Invisible Man was produced and released by Blumhouse, the dominant production company in modern horror, which likes to keep budgets low (to keep profits high). The visual effects involving the invisible man are sparse but effective: floating objects, footprints appearing out of nothing, a human shape appearing when covered in paint or water. There are big scare scenes but also plenty of lowkey creepy moments to make your skin crawl. Disembodied breath on a cold night appearing behind Cecilia is a quiet but frightening moment. Maybe the simplest and scariest effect is the camera panning over to an empty corner or staying put after everyone has left a room. As a director, Whannell is smart enough to know that the best way to scare us is not with special effects or blood and gore but to put us right in Cecilia's shoes. We are as certain of the invisible man’s existence as she is and as uncertain of where he is or what he’ll do next as she is. His attacks on her are not only physical. When she is at a job interview and her portfolio is empty, we know what happened, but the interviewer just thinks that she is forgetful and unqualified. Adrian isolates her from her family and friends just as he did before, sabotaging the relationships that are holding her up, just as real life abusers physically and emotionally isolate their victims. Elizabeth Moss gives an outstanding performance that drives the movie. Through her performance and the stylistic choices of Wharnell we really feel Cecilia’s paranoia. That is the major reason why this movie is so successfully frightening and suspenseful. She begins to come undone because of the stress and anxiety of her situation, but she knows she is not losing her mind. Scene after scene of her of not being believed has a deep significance beyond the plot. Any number of women could unfortunately relate to being not believed and left vulnerable by those supposed to offer protection. This movie easily avoids the male gaze and any lascivious scenes you might expect in a modern era movie about an invisible man: there are no scenes of Cecilia in the shower or getting undressed. From beginning to end this is an excellently crafted, scary film. This isn’t art house horror or elevated horror. This is just great horror. I wish more horror films were like this.

A good movie lets you know what you’re in for right away. A great movie surpasses those expectations. You’ll know within the first ten minutes of Jojo Rabbit whether this film is for you or not. It opens with real footage of crowds roaring ecstatically for Adolf **** while a German version of “I Want to Hold Your Hand” plays over the titles. This is how 10-year-old Johannes sees ****. In fact, his goofy, encouraging imaginary best friend is none other than Adolf. Any comedy set in **** Germany is going to be tricky to say the least, even for a talented filmmaker like writer-director Taika Waititi. In previous films, Waititi has tackled broad, dark comedy (the vampire comedy What We Do In The Shadows) and mixed comedy and sentimental drama (the wonderful Huntfor the Wilderpeople). In Jojo Rabbit, Waititi combines sharp satire, broad comedy, devastating drama, and sincere sentiment with incredible results. Movies like Jojo Rabbit don’t come along too often. This is without a doubt one of the best movies of 2019. Roman Griffin Davis plays Johannes who is young enough that he believes all of the most awful and absurd antisemitic **** propaganda. He wants to be the best **** he can be, but doesn’t measure up. Older members of the **** Youth nickname him Jojo Rabbit after he can’t bring himself to kill a rabbit. His mother, Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) is raising is him alone—his soldier father is presumed dead, or possibly a deserter—and trying to counteract the hateful propaganda Jojo has been absorbing. She is also secretly sheltering a Jewish girl, Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie), in an upstairs crawlspace. When Jojo discovers Elsa, he knows he can’t turn her in without getting his mother in trouble, so he decides question her about being Jewish to write a book. His initial shock and fright turn to confusion: she has no horns and doesn’t sleep upside down. In fact, she appears to be a normal girl and he develops a crush on her. Waititi walks a fine line both as a filmmaker, maintaining the film’s dark comic tone, and as an actor, playing the imaginary Adolf. His performance is broad and over the top but it matches what 10-year-old Jojo would conjure up. Scarlett Johansson has earned a Supporting Actress nomination for her role as Jojo’s mother and I think it’s well deserved. Her portrayal of a someone doing all she can to be a good parent and a good person is compelling. Sam Rockwell turns in another good performance as a washed-up **** officer that may actually be hiding a sense of decency. In a small but chilling role Stephen Merchant plays a Gestapo officer that comes to investigate Jojo’s house; his thin but imposing 6’7” figure is used for unease and intimidation. Archie Yates as Yorki, Jojo’s only friend in real life, is a natural born scene stealer. This film is not meant to be an actual representation of life under **** Third Reich. This is a fable about a how a young boy experiences the horrors of the **** regime and is able to survive not just with his life but with his heart and soul. The screenplay, adapted by Waititi from the novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunen, believes that fanatism is absurd, so everything presented on screen follows that principal. **** are presented as ridiculous because their whole belief system is based on the hateful absurdity that a certain group of people are superior to others. The comedy in this movie is audacious and even uncomfortable but it never mocks or minimizes the horrific actions of the ****. When one **** gives a **** Youth child a live grenade and tells him to run and hug an American soldier, it’s not remotely funny. Jojo Rabbit shouldn’t work but it does. A large reason for that is the sweet nature of Roman Griffin Davis and his scenes with Thomasin McKenzie, also giving a great performance. Another reason is Taika Waititi’s sensibilities as a filmmaker. He knows just how far to push the comedy and how to play the drama scenes for incredible effect. Advertisements have marketed Jojo Rabbit as an “anti-hate satire” which it certainly is. It is also a story about how hope can survive even in the darkest of places and times, until one day it can step outside again and dance.

It’s rare for a foreign film to gain as much popularity with American audiences as the South Korean film Parasite has done. It’s even rarer for a foreign film to earn Academy Awards nominations for Best Foreign Language (now called International) film and Best Picture, but Parasite has managed to join this exclusive club. Director Bong Joon-ho has long been turning out top quality, intriguing work (I’m a big fan of his melancholy 2003 film Memories of Murder, about a years long hunt for a serial killer). Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won’s Oscar nominated original screenplay switches tones and even genres so abruptly and successfully, it makes Parasite a unique movie to say the least. Combined with a stellar cast, excellent cinematography, production design, and pacing, Parasite becomes a thoroughly engrossing, extraordinary experience. Movies like this in any language are rare indeed. Parasite begins as a dark comedy and sharp satire about economic inequality and class disparity. The Kim family lives in a shabby basement apartment. The street level window provides them a view of ankles and urinating drunks. They work short term odd jobs and hunt around their apartment for a spot with Wi-Fi. A change in luck comes when a friend of their teenage son recommends him as a tutor for the daughter of a wealthy family, the Parks. The son, Ki-woo, reluctantly accepts though he is under qualified. Soon the Kim family schemes to replace each of the Park family servants with themselves though they pose under false identities. The 20-ish Kim daughter, Ki-jeong, provides the family with false credentials. Things take a fateful and irreversible turn when the Kims decide to have a night in luxury while the Parks are away for the weekend. That plot description seems to make the title describe the Kim family. As you watch them work their way into the home of the Park family, you may find the title applies more to the Parks whose lifestyle requires people like the Kims. The differences between a family that is oblivious of their wealth and a family that schemes to get stable, working-class jobs is apparent. But then, the film reveals layers and depth that make it truly profound. When the film becomes a riveting thriller, it does not eschew its themes and substance. I cannot recall the last time I had no idea where a film was going, not because of incompetence, but because I was watching the work of a master filmmaker. The entire ensemble is terrific. Each role is well cast and there’s a great chemistry between the members of the respective families. The stand outs for me, however are Song Kang-ho as the Kim family patriarch and Park So-dam as his clever daughter. Cho Yeo-jeong as the daffy and gullible Park matriarch is great comic relief. What sets Parasite a step above other socially conscious films is it does not sacrifice entertainment for the sake its social commentary or vice versa. It never pontificates or pretends to have any didactic solution. It is like a classic Twilight Zone episode, up front about its themes but in such a way that doesn’t speak down to audience and feels detached and immediate simultaneously. There is not a single pandering moment in the entire film. Parasite uses the real problems and concerns of modern society to tell a compelling and universal story that causes us to reflect on our world. That can be the definition a great film and great art.

There are not many films about World War I. The most well-known ones are anti-war dramas: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Grand Illusion (1938), Paths of Glory (1957), Gallipoli (1981). On the surface 1917 is a well-done, thrilling action-war movie. It is also such an immersive and intense experience that without making any overt political statement it is firmly an antiwar film. It may be a good, thrilling movie but it is never exciting in the way an adventure movie is exciting. Even in the quiet moments 1917 makes you want to be as far away from this war as possible and hope another one like it never happens. The plot is simple and very straightforward. Two young British soldiers are selected to deliver a message to a distant regiment calling off an attack the next morning. If the attack goes forward 1,600 soldiers, including the brother of one of the messengers, will charge into a trap. The encounters Corporals Blake and Schofield (Dean-Charles Chapman and Georgy MacKay) have as they make their journey across enemy territory are what you might expect from a story about soldiers on a mission: attacks from the enemy, crossing paths with another group of soldiers, finding shelter that is actually dangerous, even stumbling across a villager trying to care for a child. 1917 isn’t a total onslaught to the senses for two hours though. There are respites here and there that allow us to get to know Blake and Schofield. There are some surprising cameos by well-known British actors along the way too (or unsurprising if you’ve seen the trailer or the cast list on IMDb). Fortunately, none of these cameos take you out of the movie (Andrew Scott and Mark Strong could slip comfortably into just about any movie). Director Sam Mendes employs long takes and expert, precise cinematography by Roger Deakins and stealthy editing by Lee Smith to make the film look and feel as though it exists in one long unbroken shot. This gimmick works well for the movie when it is not distracting. In its successful moments the one-shot effect is largely responsible for the film’s frantic, immersive effect. The climatic sequence of Schofield running like mad across the top of a trench as a battle begins to find the colonel to call off the attack makes excellent use of the one shot effect; it had me gripping the armrests of my seat. Also, the nighttime sequence in a bombed-out village where flairs illuminate the night with a bright, eerie white light and a fire rages in the distance is surreal and terrifying. Other scenes, however, like when a group of soldiers (and the camera) climb into the back of a truck, then get out to push the truck, then climb back in again feel like they are straining to keep the shot unbroken. Though I think there’s nothing in 1917 that couldn’t have been achieved with conventional editing, I understand why Mendes chose to present his film as a single unbroken shot. It puts us right there with the two soldiers and we are as unsure as they are of what will happen next. There are two consequences of using the one-shot/single-take gimmick in a war film. 1) Whether intentional or not, the one-shot effect, which keeps the camera right behind, or in front of, or over the shoulder of the characters, along with the nature of the story makes the film feel like a video game at certain times. This is not really a fault against the film. It is more likely due to video games being influenced by movies and then filtering back into the culture, but the comparison comes to mind nonetheless. 2) I think all of the focus and talk surrounding the one-shot effect actually diverts attention away from the harrowing experience of the characters in the film. 1917 has already won several awards and praise as a technical achievement (which it certainly is). I just hope people can get past the film’s style to fully appreciate and experience the events on screen. 1917 only tangentially touches on the larger scale of the war. One character makes a background comment on the unimpressive patch of land they’ve been fighting the Germans over for years. Mendes chose not to focus on the politics of the war but instead tell the story of the enlisted men that fought in the trenches and in open fields. This movie is based in part on the experiences of Lance Corporal Alfred Mendes, Sam Mendes’s grandfather, to whom the film is dedicated. Mends co-wrote the screenplay, his only writing credit. For all the unrelenting action in 1917, the final shot makes this an emotional and affecting movie.

With Little Women, first published in 1868, Louisa May Alcott crafted a story so nearing perfection that not only has it become a classic, but it is difficult to mess up when retelling it. The fourth big screen adaptation Alcott’s novel, written and directed by Greta Gerwig, finds a fresh approach to the lives of the March sisters without making any major changes to the well-loved story. Gerwig uses a flashback structure, a steady and lively pace, equally lively performances, and a lovely score by Alexandre Desplat to make this period drama easily engaging to a modern audience. Gerwig begins her film near the end of Alcott’s story with Jo (Saoirse Ronan) living in New York trying to carve out a career as a fiction writer. Her sisters are scattered and wrapped up in their adult lives. Meg (Emma Watson) is raising a family and keeping a house while struggling with money. Amy (Florence Pugh) is learning painting in Europe. Only selfless and caring Beth (Eliza Scanlen) remains with their parents at the March family home in Massachusetts. Then the film flashes back to where to the novel and other film versions begin, with the sisters as adolescents living together under one roof with their mother, Marmie (Laura Dern, with infinite patience and warmness and wisdom). Their father is away serving with the Union army in the Civil War. It is seven years before we began with Jo living in New York. There is real joy and emotion in the scenes of the March sisters together (that’s the appeal of watching any version of Little Women) but we get time with each of the sisters on their own. We get to know them as individuals and are privy to what is in their minds and hearts. Gerwig put together a fine ensemble but Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh have been singled out by the Academy with Oscar nominations in the Lead and Supporting categories, respectively. This is no surprise since Jo and Amy are the two showy roles. Ronan brings just the right kind of energy to the rebellious, strong willed, sometimes abrasive, but always charming, Jo. She is full of life and personality without becoming a caricature. On the other hand, I found Florence Pugh’s performance as the youngest sister Amy (a child when the novel begins) so broad as to be distracting. Pugh plays Amy throughout the film, but the younger Amy’s behavior and actions have not been altered in any significant way. So, in the flashbacks we see an adult Florence Pugh speaking and acting like a child even though she looks like a teenager at the youngest (even with her Cindy Brady haircut). This unfortunately makes the younger Amy come off as odd and extra bratty. Timothèe Chalamet is a perfect fit for the role of Laurie, the dreamy and charming boy next door destined to be intertwined with the March sisters. Chalamet brings a lively physicality to his performance, moving his long, slender body with a lilt that matches the energy of the movie. In smaller but no less entertaining roles are Meryl Streep and Tracy Letts. Streep plays the intimidating and acerbic Aunt March, who is rich enough to be able to speak her mind. She is full of 19th century quips and zingers that are delivered wonderfully. Letts plays a grumpy New York publisher that is willing buy Jo’s stories if they are spicy and if Jo’s female main characters get married at the end, or die. Jo’s conversations with him are entertaining but also come right up against being too meta for the movie's own good (if you weren’t sure about Jo being a stand-in for Alcott, these scenes leave no doubt). I have to admit that as much the jumps back and forth in time work for the overall structure of the film some of the cuts are not immediately apparent and it takes a moment to figure out where you are in the timeline. Once you get into the rhythm of the pacing, however, you’ll find yourself caught up in the film’s enthusiasm and love for its characters. Right from the start this version of Little Women lets you know that it is not a pageant, not just another recreation of a familiar story, but a new perspective on a classic story that gets to the core of what makes this story timeless. The climax of Gerwig’s adaptation, is not whether or not Jo gets married and to whom, but how she is able to stay true to herself and her dreams and her family.

If Ford v Ferrari feels formulaic that’s because it is, but it works. It has all the elements of a traditional major studio sports movie: based on a true story, A-list movie stars, acclaimed journeyman director, fabulous cinematography, a motley crew of characters challenging conventions, an underdog angle. A more generous analogy would be Ford v Ferrari takes a reliable recipe and uses the best ingredients and best kitchen brigade to deliver an entrée so well done it is almost easy to dismiss. That is almost what happened with this movie. After coming and going at the box office just before Thanksgiving, it seems the Academy couldn’t dismiss this film entirely and gave it four Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. They were right to not let Ford v Ferrari pass without notice because, though it is working with a familiar recipe, this is an excellently done, engaging entertainment. Like the title directly states, this movie is about rival car companies. Specifically, it is about the nascent Ford racing program in the mid 1960’s taking on the dominant force in international racing, Ferrari. Like a lot of sports movies, you could argue that this movie isn’t so much about the sport but about the characters and their journey. Ford v Ferrari is certainly about car racing but what is most engaging about it is the friendship between its main characters, racer turned car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale). After a slump in sales, ambitious Ford executive Lee Iacocca hatches a plan to revitalize the car company's image by entering the world of international auto racing and winning the prestigious marathon race 24 Hours at Le Mans. Ford turns to Shelby to head their racing program. Shelby, turns to the best driver he knows, Miles, who is the right driver for the job but does not fit the Ford company image. At first the accents from the leads are a bit jarring. Damon is using a full Texas drawl and Bale uses a British accent not his own. Accents aside, Damon and Bale settle into the their characters quickly and comfortably. They are A-list stars that give A-list performances with great on-screen chemistry. Damon as the determined no-nonsense Shelby and Bale as the skilled but at times abrasive Miles (he’s described as “not a people person”) are not exactly a mismatched pair; they’re more like yin and yang. Their best scene together is also the funniest in the movie: they fight each other with groceries. Shelby has a canned good in his hand, realizes that it would hurt Miles, so he hits him with a loaf of bread instead. Even when they are trying to hurt each other, they are trying not to hurt each other. The real rivalry isn’t between Ford and Ferrari but with race crew and the Ford executives who don’t understand racing and are only concerned with corporate image, namely Josh Lucas as Leo Beebee. Lucas is great performer but there’s nothing to his character aside from being petty and obstructing Shelby and Miles. I did not care about the Ford motor company winning a race to gain prestige and sell more cars so rich men could be slightly richer. But I did care about Shelby and Miles succeeding. Watching them and their crew work together to solve the problems of building a state-of-the-art race car, with each member using their individual skills and knowledge, is a total delight. Those scenes reminded me of other film about people working together to solve a problem, The Martian, also starring Matt Damon, and also a Best Picture nominee. So, yes, in a film where the title flat out states conflict and rivalry, the best scenes are of people working together. Director James Mangold is not a household name, even among cinephiles, but he turns out solid work more often than not. He uses the same approach with Ford v Ferrari’s racing scenes. There some shots of the cars zooming by the stands but there are also shots behind and in front of the cars on the track, inside the car with the Miles, POV shots of the racers, or shots where the camera has been attached the door of one of the speeding cars. It is all cut together to thrilling results (editor Andrew Buckland received an Oscar nomination for his work). Ford v Ferrari also picked up Oscar nominations in both Sound Mixing and Sound Editing. The sound of the roaring engines, zooming cars, and, yes, explosions, are a major part of the immersive experience of the racing scenes. I have never had any interest in car racing of any kind, but the grueling climatic race at 24 Hours at Le Mans, where drivers race in four-hour shifts day and night no matter the weather conditions, had me completely enthralled. That’s good filmmaking. I can see Ford v Ferrari being dismissed as a “Dad Movie”—the kind of movie an adult child would watch with their dad over the holidays. If that is how you happen to see this picture, you and your dad are in luck.

Despite its annoyingly vague title, Marriage Story is actually about a divorce. On one level writer-director Noah Baumbach’s latest film feels like a divorce procedural. We follow a young attractive couple (Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver) as they agree to keep things simple and not involve lawyers, then involve lawyers, begin a custody battle, and try to navigate all of the emotional and legal complexities of legally dissolving a marriage. On another level, Marriage Story is a showcase of brilliant performances ranging from subtle to ostentatious, comical to moving. I enjoyed Marriage Story far more than I expected though I hesitate to recommend it since very few people (myself included) are able to have a good time by watching people argue and get divorced for over two hours. The divorce gets rocky but the film doesn’t so much and if you are in the right mood for a relationship/divorce drama you’ll find a decent, somehow, feel good movie. This is the kind of movie that hangs entirely on its performances. Fortunately, the leads and supporting players all turn in strong performances. Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver have both earned Oscar nominations for their performances as the wife and husband seeking to uncouple themselves while remaining involved with their eight-year-old son and maintaining their careers. Both earn and lose and then earn back your sympathy. Charlie (Driver) is a successful New York theater director whose latest avant-garde production is headed to Broadway. Nicole (Johansson) once starred in a popular Hollywood movie but since meeting and marrying Charlie has committed herself to the stage. A Los Angeles native, Nicole has always wanted to spend more time on the West Coast and now has landed a role in a pilot that will likely become a series. Charlie thinks of them as a New York family and expects Nicole and their son to move back to New York once the pilot is done. When Nicole decides to officially file for divorce the real conflict between them begins. Baumbach’s script does not overtly take sides though it leans toward Charlie, especially toward the end of the film. The explosive climatic argument between Nicole and Charlie gives a chance for both actors to express intense emotions, but it is Driver who gets to let out overwhelming pathos. A court appointed observer—played with welcome awkward comic deadpan by Martha Kelly—is assigned to visit and interview both parents, but we only see the visit Charlie. Charlie does his best to present as an ideal father before the visit falls into dark comedy. In a wonderfully delivered monologue early in the film, Nicole gives us her backstory, both life events and emotional. After this scene the perspective shifts to Charlie and never really shifts back to Nicole. We are as blindsided as Charlie is by claims on money and custody by Nicole’s lawyer. Nora, Nicole’s flashy and smoothly confident high-powered lawyer, is played with impressive ease by Laura Dern, who has earned a Best Supporting Actress nomination. We’re just as charmed and dazzled by her as Nicole, and just as stung by her as Charlie. Alan Alda delivers some great low-key comedy as Charlie’s first divorce lawyer. He’s old enough that his hands shake but also old enough to know how bad a divorce can get, and how it will likely end, so, he recommends just starting there. On the complete opposite end of the spectrum is Ray Liotta as Charlie second divorce lawyer, a high powered and extremely expensive pit-bull. He speaks with such speed and ridiculous intensity that he can’t help but be funny and believable as a ruthless lawyer. Julie Hagerty is a welcome presence as Nicole’s actress mother. She has so much flighty warmth that she secretly helps Charlie find a divorce lawyer. I’m sure certain viewers that have been through a divorce or even a bad breakup will find something relatable with the characters and situation in Marriage Story. I wouldn’t be surprised if other viewers find these characters and their situation unrelatable. Nicole and Charlie, though not wealthy, are in a very upper middle class bracket. They are so accomplished that momentous life changing events like landing a starring role in a TV show and earning an Emmy nomination for directing (Nicole) and winning a MacArthur “genius” grant (Charlie) are just background plot points. Whether you can relate or not, the performances from Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver are of such a rare quality as to keep you invested in their emotional journey.

The summer movie season is a time of big budget special effects heavy superhero movies, action movies, sequels, remakes, and reboots, but, also, a high-profile comedy or two. This summer’s high-profile comedy is the very R-rated Long Shot starring Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen. This unlikely romantic comedy is as solidly entertaining and smart as it is funny and raunchy. Movies for grownups don’t get made too often these days, so when one comes along and it is as good and funny as this it is a treat. Charlize Theron plays Charlotte Field, the popular and successful Secretary of State for idiot President Chambers (Bob Odenkirk), who won the election because he used to play the president on TV. The President tells her that he’s not seeking reelection so he can pursue a film career and he plans to endorse her for president once she gets a global environmental agreement off the ground. After being informed by a PR firm that people find her lacking a sense of humor, Charlotte hires a crusading journalist, Fred Flarsky, played by Seth Rogen, who recently quit his job because his news outlet was bought up by an unscrupulous conservative media conglomerate to punch up the humor in her speeches. Fred and Charlotte actually grew up in the same neighborhood and she was his babysitter who he very much had a crush on. They reconnect at a fundraiser featuring Boyz II Men where Rogen takes the first of a few slapstick tumbles. Schlubby Fred is jetted of to Stockholm, the first of many global destinations, bringing nothing with him but a garish windbreaker, awkward tapered cargo pants, and some illegal narcotics. He’s a fish out of water to say the least. Long Shot's screenplay is written by Dan Sterling and Liz Hannah and directed by Jonathan Levine. Seth Rogen is only credited as a producer, but any movie featuring Rogen, whether he wrote it or not, sets up certain comedic expectations. To be specific, an irreverent, raunchy, juvenile, foul mouthed, stoner sense of humor. That certainly describes Long Shot’s comedic sensibility, but its comedy is mostly verbal, though there is one gross out sight gag that the climax of the film hinges on (so be forewarned about that). All of the humor, even the gross out gag, is firmly rooted in the characters, so no joke or gag feels artificially tacked on for shock value As Charlotte and Fred spend more and more time together so he can get to know her better to add more of her personality into her speeches, they begin an unlikely and entirely believable romance. "Long Shot" refers to Charlotte as a presidential candidate, but it also refers to Fred as a romantic partner for the beautiful high-profile politician. Rogen and Theron are an unlikely pair but they have great chemistry. Rogen delivers his signature clever slacker character and comedic style, but Theron is far and away the star of this picture. She’s done heavy drama, dark comedy, broad comedy, action, and now clever, raunchy comedy, and she’s done them all extremely well. Hopefully Long Shot doesn’t get lost in the shuffle of big budget summer blockbuster spectacles because it is definitely worth seeking out. This foul mouthed, big hearted romantic comedy is bound to delight.

“I want you to be my Vice.” Comedic writer-director Adam McKay tries, and fails, to bring the same energy and insight from his Oscar nominated examination of the 2008 financial crisis, The Big Short, to the most notorious vice president since Aaron Burr. Vice is the story of the rise to power of Dick Cheney and how he changed the executive branch’s use of power forever and for the worse. The film opens with a title card informing the audience that this is an attempt to tell the story of the most secretive figure in recent American political history which is a difficult thing to try. It’s not a good sign when before the movie even begins it apologizes for itself. Christian Bale plays Dick Cheney and we see him first as an aimless drunk in Wyoming in the 1960’s that, spurred on by his wife Lynne (Amy Adams), cleans up his act and becomes the right-hand man of Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carell) during the Nixon and Ford presidencies. Watching him enjoy his quiet accumulation of power and the satisfaction and status it brings during the 70’s and 80’s is the most interesting segment of the movie. Once the film hits the W. Bush years when Cheney acted behind the scenes to increase his own personal power and wealth Vice should hit its stride, but instead it goes on autopilot and plays like a tired collection of Cheney’s greatest hits. Vice is very angry at Dick Cheney and condemns him plenty for his actions but that is like picking low hanging, blatantly obvious fruit. Christian Bale is great as Dick Cheney. The strength of his performance is, naturally, from his skills and talent as an actor, not just from the makeup he is under and the weight he gained for the role. He speaks with that low growl I remember so well from the W. Bush years and imitates perfectly the small laugh and smile Cheney would sometimes let slip. Cheney was not much of a public speaker or campaigner so his wife Lynne steps up and rallies people to her husband’s cause. This is where Amy Adams gets to step out from the bland role of “wife of a biopic subject” to be an active player and interesting character. Bale is nominated for Best Actor and that is no surprise. Amy Adams has earned a Best Supporting Actress nomination, but she played essentially the same character, and played her better, in The Master. Sam Rockwell, in full goofball mode, plays George W. Bush and though he's barely in the movie, Rockwell has picked up a Supporting Actor nomination. The life of Cheney is narrated by Jesse Plemons playing an average American and Iraq War veteran who says he’s related to Dick Cheney... in a way. When we find out how he’s related to Cheney it causes cringes and eye rolls. In The Big Short McKay used a hyperactive and self-aware filmmaking style to excite and engage the audience about a pretty boring and convoluted subject: the stock market and investment banking. He used cameos from stars like Anthony Bourdain and Selena Gomez to explain complex financial ideas and practices using clever and easy to understand metaphors. There is nothing complicated about how Cheney grows and abuses power. He asks a lawyer if what he wants to do is okay. The lawyer says yes. There’s nothing hard to follow there but McKay has the narrator hold our hands through it anyway. Cheney’s final actions in the movie are meant to play like a final heartless betrayal signifying that he is beyond all hope of redemption, but Vice never presented him as someone with anywhere to fall from. That would only happen with a movie that attempted insight into its subject’s emotions and motivations and even dared us to sympathize with the unlikeable main character. In Nixon, Oliver Stone built up audience sympathies for Nixon and then let him squander and betray those sympathies making his fall all the more tragic even though you rooted for him to fail. With Nixon, Stone posed the question: What does it profit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul? (this Bible quote actually appears at the beginning of that film). In Vice, McKay forgot to ask any questions, attempt any insight, or speculate on motivations. This movie has only one message: this Dick Cheney is one bad dude. If you were born before the year 2000, you don’t need a movie to tell you that.

“We’re Far From the Shallow Now” I was skeptical when I saw the trailer for A Star is Born; it seemed like just a big budget vanity project for Bradley Cooper who stars, co-writes, directs, and sings. When I finally saw A Star is Born, I was more than pleasantly surprised. Before the credits rolled, this film had me so thoroughly entertained and moved, I knew this was the kind of experience I hope to have (and so rarely get) when I go to the movies. This is the fourth version of A Star is Born. The previous versions were made in 1937 with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March, 1954 with Judy Garland and James Mason, and 1976 with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson. In 2018, Bradley Cooper plays Jackson Maine, an alt-country singer-songwriter who can still pack auditoriums but is deep into alcoholism and substance abuse. One night, at what Jackson is too drunk to realize is a drag bar, he meets a talented young waitress and singer named Ally played by Lady Gaga. He immediately recognizes her talent, invites her to his next concert, drags her out on stage to sing the song she sang for him the night before, and overnight, yes, a star is born. The music in A Star is Born is good enough to justify the success of the fictional musicians. Jackson Maine’s songs are just the right blend of country and rock to have mass appeal. The break out hit from the soundtrack is “Shallow” sung by both Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper. It would be a complete and utter shock if it did not win the Oscar for Best Original Song. As a performer, Lady Gaga is famous for her over the top and outlandish theatrics that for me always distracted from her voice and music, which I quite enjoy. Here, her voice and skills as a songwriter are front and center. As an actress, she, unsurprisingly, has a great screen presence and proves that she is not just a musician trying to be a movie star. She is the emotional center of A Star is Born. We believe and never question her love and loyalty for Jackson despite his alcoholism. Lady Gaga's nomination for Best Actress is well earned. Bradley Cooper plays one of the most believable drunks I’ve seen on screen. When playing an alcoholic any actor or actress has the temptation to go for big showy scenes of sloppy behavior. Cooper, wisely, and more accurately, plays Jackson as someone that is a little drunk all the time. The people closest to Jackson as aren't worried about him flying off the handle as they are about keeping him on his feet. He remembers that alcohol is a depressant, so his outbursts are as sleepy as they are soul crushing and regrettably memorable. Sam Elliott turns in a great performance, of course, as Jackson’s older brother and is nominated for Best Supporting Actor. I found a particular delight in watching Andrew Dice Clay play Ally’s father because he is playing a character we so rarely see on film, a believable loving and supportive father. A Star is Born has picked up 8 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, but shockingly Cooper did not receive a Best Director nomination. Retelling A Star is Born was a passion project for Cooper; he held on to the project until he was the right age to play Jackson Maine. Finding a compelling and engaging way to tell a story that has been told three times before is no easy feat. I watched all 3 previous versions recently and it is amazing how A Star is Born 2018 hits so many of the same beats, and even has the some of the same dialogue as the previous versions but does not feel like a tired rehash. The approach Cooper the director and cinematographer Matthew Libatique take toward the material makes every scene look and feel fresh even as we move down a familiar path. A Star is Born is something almost nonexistent today: a movie for grown-ups from a major studio. This film does not condescend to its audience and allows its characters to behave to like real people dealing with serious problems. This is a sentimental picture but that sentiment is earned. Jackson and Ally’s romance is believable because of the hard valleys we see them experience as well as the peaks. A darkness looms over Jackson, but Ally does what she can for him, and for herself, because that’s what you do for someone you love. A Star is Born works as love story, a drama, a fantasy and cautionary tale of ****, and a story about substance abuse all wrapped up in a soundtrack of great music. Even if you know where the story is going it is so well executed that every moment and every emotion is still gripping and affecting. There may be another A Star is Born made 20 years from now, but I think this one will remain as the stand out.

A movie like Roma does not come along too often. The new film by master filmmaker Alfonso Cuarón has the look and feel of an epic film and the intimacy and emotion of a small, personal film. From the trailer, plot description, and lavish, wordy praise it’s received from critics you might get the impression that Roma is the epitome of an arthouse movie. Perhaps it is, if that means it is also a beautiful, superbly crafted, and deeply affecting cinematic achievement. It’s hard to describe what makes Roma so special because it elicits such an emotional response in the people it connects with, myself included. Roma works on so many levels I suspect any viewer will connect with it in some way. Cuarón’s screenplay is loosely based on his experiences as a boy in Mexico City in the early 1970’s, specifically on his relationship with the family maid/nanny. This is not a story about a young boy, however. Seeking to pay tribute to the women that raised him, Cuarón makes them the focus of the movie. He even dedicates this film to his real life nanny, Liboria "Libo" Rodriguez. We follow a year in the life Cleo, a servant for an upper-class family in the Mexico City district of Roma. She cleans the house (including endless amounts of dog poop), cares for the children, and is treated as lovingly as a servant can be by her employers. First time actress Yalitza Aparicioas Cleo is so good and feels so natural in her role that she’s earned an Oscar nomination for Best Actress. Marina deTavira has received a Supporting Actress nomination for her role as the family matriarch, Sofia. Cleo’s eventful year begins when her boyfriend abandons her in a movie theater after she tells him that she is pregnant. At the same time, we gather from overheard snippets of conversations between Sofia and other adults that her husband has left the family. She tells her children that their father is on a long business trip in Canada. Sofia and Cleo do not necessarily become any closer, but Sofia and her mother are happy for Cleo and take her to see the doctor. The life events in Roma, both big and small, are episodic, but thankfully the story never meanders or feels aimless. Cleo accompanies the family to a relative’s estate, goes on a search for her wayward boyfriend, and goes with the family on a vacation to the beach. The outside world intrudes abruptly and harshly into Cleo’s day to day life though natural and man-made disasters. The focus is kept on Cleo throughout these events, which in a way makes them more real. A forest fire at a New Year’s party provides some of the film’s most memorable images. Just as the children are only marginally aware of the world of the adults until they feel a direct effect, so too are the adults with the larger world. Roma is not without some heavy-handed moments such as when a toast to someone’s doesn’t happen because the cup breaks, or when the characters go to see Marooned (I’m sure both Cleo and Sofia feel that they have been marooned by the men in their lives). For Roma Cuarón did the cinematography himself, and it is safe to say that he learned a thing or two from his long-time cinematographer, the legendary Emmanuel Lubezki, who has won 3 Oscars in a row. Cuarón shot his picture in glorious black & white on 65mm cameras. This is what makes Roma so visually stunning and gives it the feel of an epic. Typically, 65mm cameras are used for big budget action films like Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and, most recently, Dunkirk. When a modern filmmaker uses black and white, they tend to emphasize shadows. Cuarón’s camera captures wonderful shadows but it is much more concerned with what light illuminates. Sunlight seems to make everything it touches have an ethereal and dreamlike glow. The black & white makes every image feel like an old photograph conjuring old memories and emotions. Whenever the camera moves it is slow and deliberate and long, unbroken shots are numerous. Cuarón does not use many, if any, close ups. Instead his camera keeps its distance acting like window into Cleo’s life. The emotions in this story are so universal that you don’t need tight close ups on faces to know what a character is feeling or share in their emotions. I expect Roma will challenge Children of Men’s title as his masterpiece and make an appearance on the next round Best of the Decade lists. Roma received a very brief theatrical release from its online streaming distributor, Netflix. It played in Austin in just one theater for two weeks and I was lucky enough to see it on a big screen. Seeing these images projected larger than life was a very enjoyable experience. I watched Roma again on my TV recently, and it is still visually and emotionally compelling. This is the sign of a truly great film. No matter how or when you see it, those sights and sounds will swirl around and take you on a journey.

“The world's full of lonely people afraid to make the first move.” Green Book checks all the boxes of an Oscar bait movie: period setting (1960’s), based on a true story (but maybe not that true), respected/award winning actors (Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali), a name director (Peter Farrelly), deals with race (segregation in the American South), characters from different backgrounds learning from and about each other (but they’re so different!). Specifically,Green Book is about the friendship that arises between Tony Vallelonga, a white nightclub bouncer from the Bronx, and Dr. Don Shirley, a black classical pianist from Midtown Manhattan, when Tony becomes Don’s driver and bodyguard on a tour through the Jim Crow South in the 1960’s. Their friendship could make an interesting story but the approach taken by co-screenwriter Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s real-life son) and director Peter Farrelly is so familiar as to be dull beyond belief. Tony Vallelonga, or Tony “Lip” to his friends, is played by Viggo Mortensen in what is without a doubt his showiest performance. Typically, his performances are so subtle and without ostentatiousness (even when he is playing a Russian gangster or the devil), that he disappears into his character and never draws attention to himself. This is not the case with this working class, unsophisticated, loud, tough guy bigot. Mortensen hits every note required by his role; there’s just not a lot to his character. Still, in the tradition of nominating great actors for their most mediocre roles, the Academy has nominated Mortensen for Best Actor. The same goes for Mahershala Ali as Dr. Don Shirley. There should be a lot for his character to work with: being an educated, sophisticated, and successful black musician playing high profile venues and exclusive parties in the Jim Crow South. He is ostensibly the guest of honor at the private parties of wealthy high society people but they will not let him use their bathroom. He should be the lead character and we should feel his inner struggles and emotions beyond him just trying to remain dignified. Instead, Dr. Shirley is a reserved, private, and lonely person which is a pretty good excuse for a white screenwriter to not have to get into the head of a black character. All that is required of Don Shirley is to be serious, refined, dignified, and, most of all, be unamused by Tony’s shenanigans. Ali won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role in Moonlight, and he is nominated for Supporting Actor again, but, as with Viggo, this is nowhere near his best work. Ali delivers what his underwritten role requires, but having an actor like him play this part is like having his character play chopsticks. Green Book gets its title from the real-life travel guide published for black motorists during segregation so they could find a restaurant, gas station, or hotel that would accept them without trouble. This book is barely used in the movie. You would expect it to play a larger part since it is what the movie is named after. Green Book presents itself as a story about race and class, but really it is a mismatched buddy road trip movie. The problem is that is not good at being either. Will the laid back, sloppy guy and the serious, neat guy drive each other crazy? I'll admit I laughed at some of the gags and jokes, but the punchlines are not original. Mortensen and Ali work well together but there’s not enough to make their characters or their relationship feel like something you haven’t seen a dozen times before in other movies that deal with race and friendship. This is a just a recital not trying to be anything new. By the time Tony and Don are racing back to New York to make it home in time for Christmas dinner I had gone giddy from an overdose of clichés. Will Green Book make you feel good and provide two hours of inoffensive, unchallenging entertainment? Maybe, but when you can predict every beat and every scene what’s the point of watching? There are high quality actors, costumes, and production design but ultimately Green Book is nothing more than a big budget Hallmark Channel Hall of Fame movie.

“Favour is a breeze that shifts direction all the time.” At first glance The Favourite might seem to be just another British costume drama but this very R-rated story about the private relationships of Queen Anne absolutely subverts genre expectations. Everything from the stylistic choices to the characters make this a darkly comedic, vulgar, and wonderfully outrageous film. This is one of my favorite films of 2018. It is so totally engrossing with such memorable characters and scenes (especially an elaborate and ludicrous dance) that I had to see it twice. Queen Anne ruled England from 1702 to 1714. The highlight of her reign was overseeing the union of England and Scotland in 1707 (creating the kingdom of Great Britain), something no previous English king had managed to achieve. This film focuses not so much on history but speculates on her personal relationships. Her closest friend since childhood, Lady Sarah Marlborough (Rachel Weisz), acts as Anne’s caregiver, companion, adviser, and lover. She even runs the country for Anne. Lady Sarah’s status is challenged when her cousin, Abigail (Emma Stone), begins to work her way into the Queen’s favor. Anne may have had a royal life but it was not an easy one. She suffered through 17 miscarriages, still births, and untimely infant deaths, the death of her husband, and many physical ailments. She was the last monarch of the House of Stuart and only 49 when she died. Olivia Colman wonderfully portrays Queen Anne as a fragile, wounded soul searching for small moments of happiness, and also capable of acting like a spoiled child or a mad monarch at any given moment. Though Anne is more of a supporting character, Colman has picked up an Oscar nomination for Best Actress. She’s so good I can’t complain about her being in the wrong category. Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone are really the leads but they have each been nominated in the Supporting Actress category. Each actress gives the best performance of her career, though each already has an Oscar for a movie and performance I didn’t particularly care for (Emma Stone-La La Land) and a movie and performance I keep forgetting exists (Rachel Weisz-The Constant Gardener). Lady Sarah and Abigail offer Anne different kinds of love: Lady Sarah tells Anne the truth even if it is harsh and unpleasant, Abigail always flatters Anne. Weisz has no problem going from loving and sweet to stern and even cruel. She delivers crude, acerbic insults with deft ease. Weisz is also quite comfortable and easily believable as an intelligent, capable woman in power—using that power often and effectively—controlling and besting her male political counterparts. Both Weisz’s Lady Sarah and Stone’s Abigail manipulate Queen Anne for their own gain, but Abigail is the more insidious of the pair. Emma Stone has never had a role like this before. Her character is clever, funny, and charming, and also devious, selfish, and quite unlikable. Stone does a great job handling all the different facets Abigail. Director Yorgos Lanthimos and cinematographer Robbie Ryan make frequent use of fish-eye lens and canted angles to keep the audience off balance. They use slow motion for particular moments and holds on close ups of faces when the instinct of any other period movie would be to show as much as possible. The costumes by Sandy Powell look fresh and unique and not just like the costumes we see on a regular basis in period pieces. Lady Sarah, as a woman in power, is an unconventional character for her time and she has unconventional costumes to match. Her shooting outfit, which includes a hat and trousers, is the most memorable costume in the movie. Even the costumes for the men have interesting flourishes. Big, long crazy wigs were very in style. The foppish opposition party, led by Nicholas Hoult, even powder their faces. “A man must make himself look pretty,” he says. Yorgos Lanthimos's previous films include the bizarre Dogtooth and the love it or hate it The Lobster (I hated it). This is easily his most mainstream movie, which is saying something since The Favourite might be the most unconventional period movie since Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette. Unlike his previous films, Lanthimos did not pen the screenplay (Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara wrote The Favourite's Oscar nominated original screenplay); this might be why the material is palatable. There is just the right blend of humor and melancholy in The Favourite, but as the film goes on it moves into dour territory in the third act. It is as if Lanthimos couldn't let a whole film go by without injecting some of his dour, bleak sensibility. Still, I very much recommend The Favourite for its fresh take on an established genre and the brilliant performances by Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz, and Emma Stone. Even as they are being outrageous and vindictive, these people are a delight to watch.

My enjoyment of Bohemian Rhapsody corresponded directly with whether or not a Queen song was being played. The big budget Freddie Mercury/Queen biopic is at its best during scenes of the band in the recording studio or performing on stage. Rami Malek stars as Queen frontman Freddie Mercury. He emulates the way Mercury moved his body during performances and reproduces his captivating stage presence with a surprising degree of success. The scenes between the music, however, for Malek and everything else in the picture fall flat. Queen was not an average band so it’s perplexing and flat out disappointing that the movie telling the story of the band and its flamboyant lead singer is so by the numbers and full of biopic clichés. Every scene feels like it has been transposed from any other musician biopic. There is the scene where the band has a rough start to a gig but wins over the audience. There is the scene of the lead singer being offered a solo album deal. There is the scene of a press conference where reporters only want to ask about the lead singer’s private life and not the new album. There is the scene of a record label executive telling the band that their most famous song will never be a hit. This scene is an eye-rolling low point mainly because the record executive who tells Queen that teenagers will never rock out to "Bohemian Rhapsody" in their cars is played by Mike Meyers (who starred in Wayne’s World where he famously rocked out to "Bohemian Rhapsody" in a car). There is even a scene where a fatal illness is signaled by a character coughing a few drops of blood on a tissue. This is the kind of biopic Bohemian Rhapsody is. When he’s not imitating Mercury on stage, Rami Malek does a good enough job in the dramatic scenes but the oversized fake teeth he wears to look more like Mercury are distracting. Yes, Mercury did have a noticeable overbite but these false teeth make Malek look more like Bugs Bunny. The bland, basic biopic script doesn’t give Malek, or anyone else, much to work with in those dramatic non-music scenes. Mercury’s sexuality isn’t played down but it also isn’t fully explored. A montage of the band on tour (typical quick shots of tour buses, roaring crowds, etc.) shows Mercury, at the time married to Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton), glancing at and checking out other men. It’s unclear if Mercury is just looking at these men longingly or if he’s sleeping with them. The movie also never makes clear if the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing record producer Paul (Allen Leech) is Mercury’s lover or just a hanger-on. We do get to see Mercury working through his inner struggles by composing some great songs, namely “Bohemian Rhapsody”. The most original and exciting scene for me was the recording session of “Bohemian Rhapsody.” We see Brian May (Gwilym Lee) playing his guitar solo all alone in the empty barn serving as their recording studio. Then we cut to the rest of the band in the control room listening what the solo sounds like mixed with the rest of tracks. Mercury is like a conductor getting his bandmates to sing at the top of their vocal registers. First, they sing alone in the recording booth, then together, then all of those separate tracks are mixed together to create the final product. I once accompanied a musician friend when his band recorded in a real studio. This is exactly how a band records a song but I’d never seen a recording session portrayed this way until now. There is a lot to tell in the story of Freddie Mercury and Queen so the movie rushes through the band’s beginnings—they’re signed to a record label and playing sold out tours in no time—to focus on Mercury’s personal struggles and the creation of several crowd-pleasing songs. Instead of feeling rushed, however, the movie still feels long and dragged out. The climax of the picture is Queen’s iconic performance at Wembley Stadium for Live Aide. Nearly their entire performance is recreated. This isn’t just the plot climax, it’s the emotional climax of the movie and I’ll admit to being overcome with the exact emotions the film was aiming to get out of me. Though as they played song after song I wondered, why not just show the real Live Aide footage? Despite being roasted by critics Bohemian Rhapsody was a box office hit finishing among the top grossing films of 2018 and it has picked up 5 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actor for Rami Malek. I must admit I am baffled by the movie’s accolades and box office success. I presume that audiences and the people in charge of awards are responding to the great music of Queen and not the film itself. It certainly helps that the movie sends audiences out on the band’s most iconic performance of some of their best songs. But, you can get the same pathos and enjoyment from listening to Queen’s greatest hits and skipping the movie.

“If I had known this was a Klan meeting, I wouldn’t have taken this motherf__king gig.” Spike Lee’s career is full of peaks and valleys. Lee has always been aware of the power of film to directly and indirectly affect and influence audiences. At times, he can be overly didactic and forget to capture viewer attentions with entertainment. Other times he perfectly blends his skills as a visual storyteller with a message or issue he wants to address with incredible results. His latest film, BlacKkKlansman, is definitely a peak. It tells the unbelievably true story of Ron Stallworth, a black undercover police officer who infiltrated the Ku Klux Klan in Colorado Springs in the 1970’s. Lee, working with a screenplay by Charlie Wachtel & David Rabinowitz and Kevin Willmott & himself, based on Stallworth’s book, bundles a true story, a crime thriller, and a social drama about race and racism together with a lively and even comedic tone for a film that is as entertaining as it is unsettling. John David Washington (yes, Denzel’s son) plays Ron Stallworth, the first black police officer in Colorado Springs. Stallworth begins his career in the records room but after he is reassigned to the intelligence unit, he begins an investigation into the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. The rookie Stallworth makes a rookie mistake, however, and gives his real name to the Klan recruiter he speaks to over the phone. So, when the Klan wants to meet him, Stallworth enlists fellow undercover cop Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver) to pose as white Ron Stallworth in person while he pretends to be white Ron Stallworth over the phone. Like I said, an unbelievable true story. John David Washington handles both the lighter and heavier material in BlackKklansman with ease. His character never saw any conflict in being a both cop and a black person until he meets and begins a potential romance with Patrice (Laura Herrier) the head of the Black Student Union he was initially assigned to investigate. Adam Driver gives a great low-key performance as Flip. Driver portrays him as an average person that is very good at his job but finds himself in an unusual, extraordinary situation. It’s the kind of subtle performance that usually gets overlooked during awards season but Driver has managed to pick up a Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. Stallworth’s infiltration of the Klan over the phone leads to many conversations with the head of the KKK, David Duke. Topher Graceplays Duke almost too well, capturing the insidious affability and unassuming presence that was meant to be the new face of the Klan. Throughout BlacKkKlansman, other movies are referenced to show the power of cinema in regards to race and culture. The movie opens with one of the most famous shots from Gone With the Wind and a recreation of a racist propaganda film from the 1950’s. The classic Tarzan movies and Blaxploitation films are also referenced. The most emotionally affecting scene for me comes when Harry Belafonte, as an elderly speaker at a Black Student Union gathering, shares how a harrowing injustice he witnessed as a boy was inspired by the silent epic The Birth of a Nation. In 1915, D.W. Griffith, a pioneer of early filmmaking who invented much of the basic language of cinema, made the first big budget, epic film. It portrayed the KKK as the heroes and protectors of post-Civil War white Southerners. After its release, it inspired hate crimes and revived the long extinct KKK. Film historians have long wrestled with how to present or teach The Birth of a Nation; it’s importance to film history is as undeniable as the movie is revolting. I think Spike Lee has finally found a way to present both the importance and the horrendous nature of The Birth of a Nation. BlacKkKlansman seems to be unsure of what note it wants to leave the audience on. It is a very entertaining and even comedic story but also a serious one dealing with problems that are still unfortunately relevant today. Lee inserts real footage from the Charlottesville protests to emphasize that the KKK is still a real and dangerous threat (and of course he is correct). Though this documentary footage packs a powerful emotional punch, it would in any context and feels inorganically tacked on. It is one of a few missteps in an otherwise entertaining and powerful piece of cinema.

Wakanda Forever! Marvel’s Black Panther will forever hold a place in Academy Awards history as the very first superhero movie to be nominated for Best Picture. It is also only the second comic book movie to be nominated for Best Picture—the first was Skippy in 1931 (which was my favorite of the Best Picture nominees for that year). Black Panther is also notable for being a major studio movie that features a predominantly black cast and crew. It was the highest grossing film of 2018, received critical acclaim, and now has been nominated for 7 Academy Awards. Despite all of that, Black Panther is most notable of all for standing out amongst the din and spectacle other superhero movies and giving us memorable characters and a new and exciting country: Wakanda. The fictional African nation of Wakanda is a feast for the eyes. The costumes for its people blend traditional African motifs with a sleek futuristic sensibility with creative and impressive results; it’s no surprise costume designer Ruth E. Carter has received an Oscar nomination for her work. Production designers Hannah Beachler and Jay Hart have received much deserved Oscar nominations for creating the look of Wakanda. The visuals of both interiors and exteriors are exciting and dazzling. The design for the snowy mountain homeland of Wakanda’s reclusive Jabari tribe alone deserves an Academy Award. Most of all the production design creates a high-tech futuristic place that feels like it could be a part of the real world. Of course, Black Panther is woven into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The African superhero first appeared in Captain America: Civil War, where the king of Wakanda was killed by terrorists making his son, Prince T’Challa, unexpectedly king. T’Challa also became the Black Panther, protector of Wakanda, aided by a super suit and magical potion that gives him super strength. The brilliance of the screenplay by director Ryan Coogler and co-writer Joe Robert Cole is it does not require you to have seen other Marvel superhero movies to enjoy or understand the characters or plot. This might be the most accessible film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe aside from the first Iron Man back in 2008. Chadwick Boseman plays T’Challa/Black Panther and he does a good job of playing not just a believable superhero but also a believable leader of a country. Though T’Challa is the main character, the stand out characters and performances are in the supporting cast. Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger is easily the most memorable and interesting villain of any Marvel movie. Killmonger is a living breathing person (not just a big CGI bully like Thanos) with understandable though not admirable motivations. T’Challa’s allies are the mostly female and all badass warriors and scientists of Wakanda. Letitia Wright plays Shuri, T’Challa’s younger sister. She is the Q to his James Bond, inventing cutting-edge, high-tech gadgets and since they’re siblings the characters have a lively back and forth banter. Lupita Nyong’o is T’Challa’s ex-girlfriend and Wakanda’s chief spy, Nakia. Danai Gurirais Okoye, Wakanda’s tough and unflappable general. Martin Freemanis good comic relief as a fish-out-water CIA agent awestruck by Wakanda. I think part of the reason for Black Panther’s success with audiences and critics and the reason it doesn’t feel like just another superhero movie is its story follows the template of a James Bond movie rather than a superhero movie. There is even a memorable action scene set in a posh casino followed by a car chase. The rest of the action sequences are not as jarring or bombastic as those from The Avengersmovies. You can follow what is happening and where and who it is happening to; you can actually be engaged in the action. Moreover, there’s reason for the action. Killmonger’s sincere but villainous motivations and T’Challa’s dilemma in being both a protector and a leader add substance to superhero spectacle