A Futile and Stupid Gesture

A Futile and Stupid Gesture

I've been waiting for this to come out for a few years (since I first saw it announced on IMDb), and I'll start by saying that this is not a very good movie. It's tonally messy, Will Forte is wildly miscast, it's watered down in every way except for the drugs, and if you're interested in comedy and want to see a movie that tells Doug Kenney's story in a clear, honest, and exhilarating way, it's much better to watch the documentary Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead: The Story of the National Lampoon, which is on Netflix. All that being said, let me explain why I still had a lovely time watching this movie.

Spoilers!

For starters, this is a film that's made almost exclusively for National Lampoon fans and comedy nerds. Lack of knowledge about the magazine, the movies, the comedians, and the comedians playing the comedians will result in confusion and an overall lack of investment in what's happening. For example, Joel McHale is a perfectly acceptable choice to play Chevy Chase, but knowing that both he and Chase starred on Community together, and that McHale has very mixed feelings about Chase in real life, is the key to what makes that casting interesting. Seeing modern improv heroes like Neil Casey, John Gemberling, Jon Daly, Paul Scheer, Brian Huskey, and Matt Walsh is delightful, and luckily they're all acceptably cast as well (with Scheer and Huskey only making tiny cameos). David Wain directs the film, so other The State alumni Tom Lennon and Joe Lo Truglio have roles, as well as Martin Mull, Matt Lucas, Ed Helms, David Krumholtz, Arrested Development creator Mitch Hurwitz, and Seth Green (who, criminally, is in about eight seconds of the movie, playing Christopher Guest incredibly well) to round out the rest of the powerful comedy cast. The movie is sloppy in its storytelling and doesn't explain itself for anyone who isn't familiar with its subject matter, but watching these niche, modern comedians play in the time capsule of this legendary 70's era of comedy is what makes the movie wildly entertaining. They're not even necessarily giving very good performances in terms of acting, but seeing them try and nail down Lampoon's very specific style of humor is just fascinating. 

Domnhall Gleeson, Emmy Rossum, and Natasha Lyonne are the only dramatic actors in the film, and they all give fantastic performances. However, this only highlights how the rest of the cast isn't quite dramatically up to par, and especially how unfortunately miscast Will Forte is, which is hard to admit as a fan of his. He's not meant to play a wild, coke-addled, sex-crazed, eccentric genius with mood swings-type because he simply comes off as too sweet and harmless. Maybe that was their way of lightening up the character and making him more sympathetic, but instead he just doesn't fit with the rest of the movie and comes off like a dorky dad. There were times where it almost felt like a bit, like if Forte was playing a rock star like Mick Jagger in a funny fake-biopic-movie-trailer sketch. He's that out of place. It's in no way his fault, and I love seeing him as main character again (the first time since 2013's Nebraska), this just wasn't the right part for him.

The way the film tells its story is all over the place. Martin Mull plays a fictional present day version of Kenney, and tells a lot of meta jokes while breaking the fourth wall (at one point literally calling himself "a narrative device"), like 24 Hour Party People, American Splendor, Wolf of Wall Street, The Big Short, I, Tonya, and any other meta biopics of this nature I might be forgetting. Sometimes this is funny and can work, like when he points out how they did a pretty okay job with casting but maybe didn't quite hit the mark, and how Forte is obviously not 27 years old, but other times he feels out of place and is overall inconsistently used. The movie also feels very rushed in terms of getting through each specific story beat of Kenney's life (what The AV Club refers to as "Wikipedidis"). However, where this film excels is in its editing. Because the overall look of the film (in terms of color, lighting, and cinematography) feels oddly cartoony, it's when they embrace the cartooniness of it and do odd editing and sequences that it turns into something really interesting. Examples include: when Kenney cheats on his wife and she walks in on them, it's done in the still photo, comic panel style of one of the magazine's most famous bits; in another emotional point for Kenney, the National Lampoon players (Chase, Murray, Radner, Guest, Belushi, and Ramis) show up behind him and do a radio bit that narrates his sadness; Kenney and his girlfriend leave a party and take their fancy clothes off to reveal vacation clothes underneath, then walk onto a Hollywood movie set in the same shot. These are the most memorable and unique scenes in the movie because they're risky and could only work for this movie. It's when they try to be dramatic in a more conventional biopic way that it falls flat. If Wain had just fully embraced the weirdness and gotten really crazy with the filmmaking, this could have been a far more interesting movie.

I didn't really expand on how it's watered down, but I think that's because I would feel somewhat sleazy giving the note that it should have more sex and debauchery. Adding more sex could also feel a bit exploitative and probably end up being too similar to Wolf of Wall Street, so I can understand why they didn't go far into that direction. That being said, they didn't really go in that direction at all. The characters practically come off as celibate. Sure, there's several scenes of characters doing cocaine, but even that's shown in an oddly light way. These people were legendary party monsters, sex and drugs were essentially food and water to them, and their art reflected that. The entire appeal of Animal House is that it feels like a real party, and Caddyshack was essentially made on accident while they were having a multiple-month-long party. They also partook in a lot of sexist and racist humor, which the movie somewhat avoids, and it calls itself out for dodging that subject in a few funny different ways. This is an element that's more than okay to skim over as it wasn't anywhere near as important as the partying, and it would not exactly be helpful in the current social climate. But even if you drop that element, this is still a movie about National Lampoon, so there should be a lot more depraved insanity in order to honor that premise.

However, regardless of the overall quality of the film, if you're a comedy nerd you should still absolutely check it out, especially if you love both niche modern comedy and wild 70's era comedy. Otherwise, I would again recommend watching that documentary first, so that if you decide to then watch A Futile and Stupid Gesture you'll actually know what's going on. It's by no means a great movie, or even a good one, but if you're passionate about the source material and/or the cast, you'll still get something out of it.

Clueless

Clueless

This is another big, basic movie that I can finally check off my list.

Using Jane Austen's Emma as a blueprint, this is often referred to as the original Mean Girls, which is definitely not a stretch, but I don't think quite nails it. Where Mean Girls is an out-right comedy jam-packed with jokes, Clueless is subtler and often feels more like a study on its subjects: wealthy Los Angeles teenagers in the mid-1990's.

Some spoilers for a movie from 1995.

As someone who has never been a wealthy Los Angeles teenager in the mid-1990's, I can only speculate on its accuracy, but most people from that time seemed to agree that writer/director Amy Heckerling pretty much nailed it. The dialogue is often an impressive tightrope act of having the characters sound dumb while actually delivering some really clever jokes. These teens aren't quite dumb on the level of other smart-dumb characters like Homer Simpson or Michael Scott, they're just ignorant due to being raised as one-percenters. They still have emotions and problems that most high schoolers will relate to, they just also have fancy clothes, houses, and cars that none of them know how to drive. Heckerling also made Fast Times at Ridgemont High, so making stories that high schoolers can relate to isn't exactly a difficult task for her. It also helps that Austen works great in a high school setting because her books typically center around class and tangled love triangles (cards on the table, I have yet to actually read any of her books, but I know these are their very basic tropes), so it doesn't feel unnaturally forced into a different story like some Shakespearean adaptations can. While they are exaggerated, they do still feel like real teens.

The cast is very good, with Alicia Silverstone somehow playing her character without any judgement or irony, the late Brittany Murphy being effortlessly lovable, Breckin Meyer and Donald Faison giving funny performances that are also different from their more typical roles, Wallace Shawn being Wallace Shawn, and Paul Rudd just being adorable. Silverstone and Rudd ending up together is a little weird for a couple different reasons, namely the real-life age difference between the actors (Rudd being 26 and Silverstone only 18) and it's completely glossed over, but it doesn't ruin the movie or really raise that much of a red flag. Justin Walker is a bit of a standout in terms of both how charismatic he was, and how he's in no way a gay stereotype. Obviously this is to later make his sexual orientation a twist, but it's still nice to see a 90's gay character that doesn't fall into the usual behavior and cheap gags that lesser movies would go for.

The soundtrack is all over the place, but in kind of a good way. They've got some 90's movies staples like "Kids in America" by the Muffs and "Shoop" by Salt-N-Pepa, but then they used Radiohead TWICE, which nearly made me have a heart attack caused by unexpected joy. There's also a photo montage set to Supergrass, another wildly out-of-the-blue britpop favorite, and then possibly the weirdest musical cameo that could be in this movie: an actual Mighty Mighty Bosstones concert. I understand that ska was big in the 90's, especially in California, but that still seems a little too niche for Cher and her friends to be into. Shouldn't they like Madonna or Hootie & the Blowfish? Something a little more mainstream? I don't know, I was just delighted by the oddness of that choice.

I won't say much more, since it pretty much speaks for itself and most people have already seen it. It's totally solid. Not phenomenal or groundbreaking, but very entertaining. If I had a group of friends who wanted to watch it, I would absolutely be down to watch it again.

Oh, and it's weird that the kids are invited to their teachers' wedding. Has anybody talked about that?

Fanboys

Fanboys

This is a movie that several of my nerdy friends have been wanting me to see for a few years now, so I finally sat down with one of those nerdy friends and watched it. Spoilers ahead.

This is a really great premise for a movie. In 1998, a group of Star Wars nerds decide to take a road trip to Skywalker Ranch to watch The Phantom Menace before its release because their friend is dying of cancer. It's a simple story that immediately creates excitement because there's so much to explore, such as dissecting nerd culture, exploring the late-90s as a very specific time in pop culture, and the effects of cancer on friendship. Instead it mainly goes for low-hanging-fruit-jokes, lazy stock characters, and just having nerds act nerdy for the nerd of it.

I don't want to rip on this movie too hard because I feel like it would be punching down (it's just a low-budget comedy that didn't do well in the box office (it didn't even break one million), and I have friends that have a great time watching it), so instead I just want to talk about how it could've been improved as both a comedy and a film in general.

When it comes to the characters, we have two fairly distinct nerds (Dan Fogler as a John Belushi-esque 70's-era party-nerd and Jay Baruchel as an awkward, hopeless romantic nerd), two bland nerds (Sam Huntington and Chris Marquette as average white guy and average white guy with cancer, respectively), and cool girl nerd who's whole thing is that she's a cool girl nerd (Kristen Bell, who manages to bring something to this lazily-written character by being the treasure that she is). We meet them all at a generic costume party where they ham fisted-ly explain who they are and what the movie is going to be about. Instead of doing this, we should either be introduced to the characters individually by seeing what a typical day in their life is like, or have them together doing something else, like watching Star Wars together. This is less on-the-nose and also has a lot more potential for both comedy and development. Moving on to specific characters, Eric, the main guy, works at his dad's company and he's going to get promoted so he's going to leave his nerdy friends behind. While this is a very cliche scenario, I like that it adds conflict and makes him the audience surrogate character by having him be the only one in the circle of friends who knows that they're embarrassing nerds. Eric is a boring character, but seeing as he's the protagonist, the voice of reason, and the only one of them with a future, it's at least forgivable. However, his dying best friend Linus is the exact same amount of boring and bland, only he gladly accepts his nerdiness. There's no reason for Linus to not be as distinct and recognizable as Fogler and Baruchel's characters, seeing as how it would be very easy to do. For example, they really try to brush over Linus' cancer, but if they were going to address that more then maybe he'd be depressed or in denial, or if they're going for stock nerd characters maybe he's the logical one, like Spock or Abed from Community, and having cancer doesn't make any sense to him so he's going haywire. These are just depressing spitballs but they at least give him some form of a personality. I'm not at all familiar with Huntington or Marquette so I don't know how they normally are as actors, but Baruchel, Bell, and Fogler are all seasoned comedic performers, so they're at least able to bring something special to their lazily-written stock roles.

Bell's character bothers me in particular because she's such a stereotypical male-written female role. "The cool nerdy girl who's just one of the guys and says stuff that normally only dudes say" is a bizarre and common trope that, in this movie in particular, accidentally serves as that previously-mentioned dissection of nerd culture, because it shows that the screenwriters fall right into the one of its most problematic pits (other than the Sarlacc): sexism. It's awesome to have a nerdy girl character, but she needs to have an actual personality that's more than just "one of the guys." She needs to have her own conflicts beyond having a crush on Baruchel, which is barely even addressed until the end of the second act. For instance, it's very weird that she hangs out with these dudes (especially Fogler, who straight up tries to get her to take her shirt off through Jedi mind tricks), so maybe she finally takes a moment to examine her life choices and ends up going through some kind of mental breakdown. Or maybe she still has a crush on Baruchel but it's more of a creepy obsession and she's a very over the top Helga from Hey Arnold! stalker-type. Or maybe she's the logical Abed nerd character. Or if she's still both nerdy and cool, maybe she dreams of being a stunt person for a Star Wars film and she love dangerous situations. Again, not great examples, but it's about giving her a personality beyond "one of the guys."

As far as humor goes, Fanboys has a reliance on a few different joke-types: references, cameos, making fun of nerds, and using uncreative stereotypes. Let's get that last one out of the way first, because while I have no idea if anyone involved with the film was a bad person (except for producers Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, which was an unexpected double-whammy in the credits), there's definitely some dated stuff in this movie. Bell's character has already been addressed, but then there's things like the surprise gay bar, doing drugs with a "chief" while not even hiring a Native American actor to play him, and cheap use of slurs that had been widely considered to be unacceptable well before its release date. This movie was made in 2009, so there's really no excuse for any of this other than it's a desperate attempt at getting laughs. The cameos are all fun, and that's kinda it. It's cool to see Billy Dee Williams in something recent, or being able to see Carrie Fisher again, or William Shatner as a shady, Deep Throat-esque person, but they don't do much beyond that. The way the movie makes fun of nerds is strange because I was never entirely sure if they were condemning or celebrating them. Seth Rogen as the Trekkie came off as a bit mean-spirited due to his false teeth, but then Linus has a whole speech about how much Star Wars means to him and how he's proud to be nerdy. The answer might that they're both good and bad or that they're neither, but instead of having an answer or just constantly making jokes on both sides of the argument, they should have been trying to get to the bottom of the phenomenon of grown adults being so excited about movies that George Lucas has frequently explained are for children. This doesn't need to be the thesis of the film, it should ultimately just be about the characters and the story, but it could have been a really fascinating and unique element that set it apart from other mainstream comedies.

Moving on to references, the issue here is that Fanboys' references are often placed where an actual joke should be. References can often lead to great jokes, but a reference is not a joke on its own. They can be used as a way to bring in an unexpected comparison (for example, in Superbad, when Seth claims to have hit his sexual peak too early, Evan says "You're like Orson Welles.", a reference to not only Citizen Kane, but Welle's entire career after that, which no one would expect those characters to reference in that scene), as a character trait (Abed's constant referencing of TV and movies, Jack Black's passion for classic rock bands in School of Rock, Sterling Archer's desire to be like Burt Reynolds and therefore knowing all of his movies, etc.), and as a parody/homage (Both Shaun of the Dead and Young Frankenstein are perfect for this (as are basically any Edgar Wright or Mel Brooks film) because even if no one could understand a single homage, parody, or any other kind of reference in the entire film, they still stand completely on their own through their strong jokes, conflict, and characters, as opposed to any of the Scary Movie-type parodies, which are just heightened references). The best part about a lot of these examples is that understanding the reference is not a requirement, it's just a bonus. Meanwhile, there are two separate scenes in Fanboys where the nerds are being interrogated and have to answer Star Wars questions, which is not enjoyable for anyone except people who already know the answers. In the second interrogation scene they at least juxtapose the Star Wars questions with sex questions that none of the nerds except Kristen Bell understand, but that still doesn't elevate it to hilarity. Sometimes the references feel totally out of place, such as being able to make their car go to lightspeed even though that doesn't fit in the world they've set up, and then having their car crash into a billboard which makes a Darth Vader-shaped hole and then his breathing noise happens. This is all for no reason other than to make references. It doesn't further the story or develop the characters at all.

All this being said, this is still nowhere near as bad as something like Big Bang Theory, which is a soulless, passionless, mean-spirited cash-grab con-job, because it's clear that the people making the movie actually do love Star Wars. One of the writers of the film was Ernest Cline, who wrote the novel Ready Player One and its subsequent screenplay. That guy is clearly a genuine sci-fi nerd. Adam Goldberg was the other writer, and he created the dysfunctional family show The Goldbergs so clearly he identifies with social outcasts. I don't know about the rest of the cast, but Kristen Bell and Jay Baruchel are definitely both passionate, nerdy people when you see them in interviews. There are passionate and excited people behind this movie, there just wasn't a lot of effort actually put into it. This could have been something great, and it had all the resources and the drive to do it, they just didn't do it. I don't really know why.

Ultimately as a movie and as a comedy I wouldn't recommend this movie. I think there's better, funnier movies out there and this one doesn't cover any new territory. However, if you're a passionate Star Wars fan and you love to hear Star Wars references and make Star Wars jokes, this'll probably still be a good time for you and your friends.

The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)

The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)

A funny little Noah Baumbach movie about three adult siblings and their infuriating artist father who's starting to lose it.

The cast is both talented and eclectic, with Ben Stiller, Adam Sandler, Elizabeth Marvel, Emma Thompson, and alleged creep Dustin Hoffman. The characters they play are distinct and clear but also very grounded in reality, a staple of Baumbach's, and this makes the actors' performances all the more interesting to watch. Sandler and Marvel are stand-outs in both the quality of their performances and getting to see them go against type and showcase their true range.

The movie touches on several different themes, including family, age, health, art, and career choices. It sometimes deals with these themes via plot, such as what Hoffman deals with in the second half of the film, or seeing Stiller balance his career and family life, but it mainly addresses its themes via dialogue. Important details are revealed about all of the characters through natural, flowing conversation, complete with interruptions and distractions. This seems to be the main element people notice about the film, and that makes sense as it's certainly what it does best. It makes me curious as to how much of it was improvised and/or rehearsed as opposed to what Baumbach originally wrote. Considering Baumbach's style, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone was really sticking to the script, but its so convincingly real that a part of me isn't quite ready to believe that.

I really don't have much more to say on this one without getting into spoilers.

It's a charming, funny movie that's formatted in an interesting way and has very good performances from an impressive cast. That's about it.

Atomic Blonde

Atomic Blonde

Great action movies, such as Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Mad Max Fury Road, benefit from strong visual storytelling, impressive stunts, a simple plot, engaging characters, and expert editing. Atomic Blonde is visually garish, almost entirely talking (with boring, childish dialogue), an overly complicated plot that gets bogged down in its own details, uninteresting characters, bland editing, and exactly one interesting fight scene. It's a bad action movie.

With Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, John Goodman, Eddie Marsan, and Toby Jones, it's good to remember that a great cast in no way reflects the actual quality of the film. Theron is given hardly anything to do because she doesn't have a character to play. She does her fighting scenes well and does what she can with the boring dialogue, but there's no reason to be invested in her character because she doesn't really have a reason for anything she's doing other than it's her job, and has no personality or any real backstory. The Bride in Kill Bill is a relatively simple character, but she has a clear motivation for her actions and has an interesting backstory. Maybe in the graphic novel Theron's character is like that, but in the movie they clearly just went off the word "badass" and then half-assed the rest of it. James McAvoy is fun, because he just can't help it, but anyone else playing that character would reveal that he's flat and devoid of personality as well.

If I heard a talented stunt coordinator (the one who directed that original Deadpool short that everyone loved) was finally directing his own action film, I would assume that the movie would have all sorts of fun and creative action scenes, and I would then be punished for assuming such a thing. The movie's one memorable action sequence is the massive long-take scene, which doesn't have anything to actually get invested in, it's just impressively shot. Every other action scene is small and poorly edited. There's nothing creative or smart about the action either, it's just punching, shooting, and stabbing, and it's few and far between. Instead it's mostly talking. Bad talking.

The director tries to use music to enhance the handful of action scenes, but somehow manages to choose the wrong song every single time. Instead of choosing fast-paced rock songs, or an ironic song that juxtaposes the action, he chooses songs like "Major Tom" and "I Ran" that are slow-paced and don't fit what's happening on screen at all. It's clear he didn't think about the music ahead of time and just had his music supervisor pick random 80's songs that everyone knows like "99 Luftballoons." They even directly steal from Inglourious Basterds and have Charlize Theron get ready to go kill people to David Bowie's "Putting Out the Fire", only they make it flat and uninteresting.

I can't remember a single plot detail, or anything about any of the characters, or a word of dialogue. It's a passionless, forgettable, poorly made action film that has no pulse. Look up the long-take sequence on YouTube though, because it is impressive. Other than that, this is one isn't worth anyone's hard-earned two hours.

Phantom Thread

Phantom Thread

A gorgeous film with brilliant acting and directing that slowly unfolds itself into a fascinating study of toxic relationships, and the many different forms they can take while still consuming the same two people.

Paul Thomas Anderson is one of my very favorite filmmakers, and in some ways this is Paul Thomas Anderson's least Paul Thomas Andersonian film (there is no ensemble, it is almost entirely focused on two people; there is no violence or nudity, and hardly any language; it takes place in London instead of California, etc.), but it is still undoubtedly his work. It has the same underpinning darkness, anger and intensity, shifting power dynamics, strong characters, and well-defined world that are common in all of his films. The cinematography, pacing, and intimacy of both the world and characters specifically reflect that of The Master, as opposed to his earlier more fast-paced films, the tender nature of Punch-Drunk Love, the epic scope of There Will Be Blood, or the total incomprehensibility of Inherent Vice. It's definitely a unique addition to his oeuvre.

(I won't go into spoilers, but as the trailers suggest, this is a dark romance film. I'm not sure it's a spoiler to say the film goes in dark directions and there's power dynamic shifts, but it would be hard to have a Paul Thomas Anderson movie where this didn't happen. I'm not going to get into specifics, but I will say, as I just said, that things do take a dark turn.)

Daniel Day-Lewis says this is his last film, and if so, this is a really interesting note to go out on. This is by no means a complete transformation like that of Daniel Plainview or Abraham Lincoln, it's very clearly Day-Lewis on screen. He's by no means a hero or a villain, he's simply a perfectionist who, as the term would suggest, gets very frustrated when things aren't perfect. This can sometimes make him relatable and even funny, but also caustic and cruel. While is technically a romance, both he and Vicky Krieps are unhappy with each other and are constantly trying to manipulate the other into being who they want. He's not a monster like Plainview, but he's certainly inconsiderate, and Day-Lewis plays that angle very well.

This is my first time ever seeing Vicky Krieps, and boy does she stand her own against Day-Lewis. It's by no means an acting competition, but since these characters are manipulating each other, Krieps does have to find her own way of being effected by, and occasionally standing up to, Day-Lewis in their scenes together. Her character is meek and polite while Day-Lewis is used to being in control, so she begins as the audience surrogate, but eventually finds her own ways of trying to change him that are initially innocent, but then get into something much darker and stranger.

I love how each act is able to have a complete tonal shift while still feeling seamlessly consistent, like not noticing the steadily rising temperature of water until it's boiling. This is largely because of the world and the characters that Anderson presents. The film is able to take as much time as it wants in telling its story because there is so much to look at and think about after almost every scene. It's engaging purely through the power of both the filmmaking and the themes that it presents. It doesn't need any gimmicks, it's able to take unexpected turns without them ever feeling like "twists" that cheaply try to trick the audience, instead it's just smartly written.

I would absolutely recommend this film. It's not my favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film, but I would absolutely want to visit this world again. The pacing is very deliberate and it covers a toxic relationship in a very real way, so as long as you're into that, you'll have a great time.

I, Tonya

I, Tonya

From the format to the performances to the insane source material to the incredibly fast pace, this is an undeniably entertaining movie from start to finish.

For anyone not familiar with the infamous story of Tonya Harding, she was the first female figure skater to successfully pull off two triple axels (spinning three and a half times in one jump) in one competition. Oh, and right before the 1994 Winter Olympics her competitor Nancy Kerrigan got her knee whacked by a guy that turned out to be a friend of a friend of Harding's ex-husband. That second part got a lot more press, and Harding became synonymous with sabotage, despite most people never really knowing whether or not Harding was actually involved in the attack.

I, Tonya opens by revealing it's entirely based off of interviews with Harding, her mother, her coach, her ex-husband, his bodyguard, and a guy from the magazine that first covered the Kerrigan story, so right away it's clear that the film is choosing a very personal (and more than likely biased) perspective on these events. This makes the movie all the more interesting and allows it to go really crazy with the storytelling, starting with all of the interviews being reenacted by the actors playing the real people who were being interviewed. The style definitely follows in the line of The Wolf of Wall Street and The Big Short in terms of being a fast-paced, self-aware biopic, complete with characters looking into the camera and saying "This really happened." and funny fictional cutaways. This style can very easily come off as forced, but I think for the most part the movie does a good job of making it work. There's so much energy and passion for this story that it's hard not to have a great time, even when they're kind of making light of a vast amount of terrible that really happened, namely lots of physical abuse inflicted almost entirely on Tonya.

It feels like Margot Robbie has been wanting to play Tonya Harding her whole life, and this is her finally getting her wish fulfilled (she even produced the thing!). She's sympathetic, strong-willed, and has a natural charisma that makes her all the more likable when she's telling off everyone around her. They do a great job of emphasizing the fact that while Nancy Kerrigan (who's hardly in the film) is a typical American sweetheart, Tonya Harding is far more American in the truer sense of the word. She always sticks up for herself both verbally and physically, she's proud of her lower class status, and she's always out to prove herself to the world while simultaneously not even slightly caring about what anyone else thinks of her. Like her or not, she'll always be coming back in one form or another, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop her.

The rest of the cast is fantastic. Allison Janney, who's always been a personal favorite of mine, steals every scene she's in. She adores every second of playing this horrible monster of a mother, who justifies her actions by saying she's made Tonya a champion, which in some ways is hard to argue. She's an extreme, but still authentic, example of those crazy sports parents. Sebastian Stan is great at playing both young and old Jeff Gillooly, particularly at making him come across as innocent at first but then revealing that he's just as terrible as Tonya's mother without it feeling like he's playing a completely different character. He's a guy who has a spectrum that goes from gentle to psychotic and even when it spikes suddenly, it's clear he's the same guy. Paul Walter Hauser (who I'll always think of as the Juggalo high schooler in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) is hilarious as Shawn, Jeff's friend and "bodyguard", though he definitely just plays him dumb and doesn't necessarily bring a lot of humanity to him. All of these actors help bring alive the film's speedy and wild world by emphasizing the desperation that all of these people really felt and acted upon.

There's really only a couple gripes with the movie that I can muster up. It's clear when Margot Robbie's face is digitally plastered onto real skaters' faces, and can cause a slight uncanny valley effect. She definitely did some actual skating, but it's very obvious when it's no longer her. The film also features wall-to-wall classic rock songs, which at times can feel like a little much, like they're trying too hard to be Goodfellas or Boogie Nights (this also applies to a lot of the camera work, but I was fine with that because it worked). But that's honestly about it.

There's lots of people who still don't like Tonya Harding, either because they still think she's involved in Kerrigan's assault, which is fair, or because outspoken women with strong opinions annoy them, which is not as fair. Either way, this film is a reminder that she came from a very tough place and only ever wanted to be the best at what she did, no matter what it took. Love her or hate her, it's a fascinating American story that won't soon be forgotten.

Also, shout out to Sufjan Steven's incredible "Tonya Harding", which doesn't appear in the film, both because it's fun to mention him two reviews in a row, but also if it had appeared in the film it would probably have made him an Oscar-hopeful for two different films in the same year. Oh well.

Call Me By Your Name

Call Me By Your Name

A flowing, dream-like summer memory of messy, young love and the self-discovery that results from it.

Elio is an Italian-American-Jewish boy living with his family in Italy. When Oliver, a young Jewish-American scholar comes to visit, Elio finds himself going through the awkward trial and error of entering adulthood as a summer romance slowly blossoms between them.

Though this movie is set in 1983, it has a timeless quality to it, which might be its strongest feature. It never goes overtly 80's, with the biggest references being Elio wearing a Talking Heads shirt or the now-popular-again Psychedelic Furs song, but that's really it. A large part of its timelessness comes from how it takes its time in telling the story and allows scenes to breathe and sometimes not even really go anywhere (even though the most "pointless" scenes still develop characters or help create an atmosphere). I've never read the book, but friends of mine who have consider it to be a great adaptation, which I would agree with simply because it feels novelistic without going out of its way to hit specific story beats. It's often easy to tell when a movie is based off a book because the film is rushing and stopping to make sure it hits each important part of the source material which causes off-beat pacing, but with Call Me By Your Name it flows smoothly and feels almost like a stream of consciousness. It definitely has the pacing of an Italian film as opposed to an American film, which makes sense, as this movie has essentially fooled the majority of awards season into thinking it's not a foreign film simply because most of it is in English and it stars three Americans.

Speaking of Italy, this film is gorgeously shot in Italy. I've never been there before, and this film only highlighted my regret of that continuing status. Most of the shots are static, which causes many scenes to look like moving photographs, adding to the summer-memory-feeling that the film as a whole creates. When the camera does move it's often in an incredibly long take, which feels less like an indulgent style choice and more like the film reflecting reality, as our lives are technically one unbroken shot. Except for when we sleep. Or blink. Actually never mind.

The music, with no original score (from what I could tell), is fantastic. From Psychedelic Furs "Love My Way" to three brand-new Sufjan Stevens songs, this is absolutely a soundtrack I would buy. Elio is also practicing to be a composer, so we get to see Timothy Chalemet play some music as well. The only non-diegetic music in the film are the Sufjan songs, which is a risky move in a period film because it could easily break the reality that they've set up, but luckily they absolutely work in the context of the film (but I'm madly in love with Suf's music, so I might be biased). The final song is what really seals the deal though, without going into spoilers.

Timothy Chalemet has been getting all sorts of critical praise for his performance, and it is damn well-deserved. He brings so much to this character who seems simultaneously lost yet incredibly confident in where he's going. He's able to convey so clearly what he's going through without having to push for more emotion than necessary and instead just being present. Armie Hammer is also quite good, giving his character a more alpha presence while still being charming and likable. Michael Stuhlbarg made me laugh at first with his slightly over-the-top cheeriness, but of course that really great monologue (you know the one) is delivered perfectly by him and gives his character an entirely new depth. Esther Garrel, who isn't getting anywhere near enough attention for this film, is so genuine and heartbreaking that she takes what could be a forgettable part and instead makes her unforgettable. Awards all around!

It's been about 24 hours since I saw the film and I'm still entranced by its atmosphere, music, and characters (24 hours might not sound like much, but there are films I've forgotten about while I was still watching them), so yes I would absolutely recommend this film. Just know that it has absolutely nothing to do with plot, but is instead about the emotions and the characters. Like the opposite of a Christopher Nolan movie.

Okay, one spoiler:



I like that nothing ends up working out for Elio. Both of the loves he attempts are fleeting, something that often happens to seventeen year-olds. Though these relationships could have turned out far worse (Oliver and Marzia could have been toxic and abusive but instead are both lovely and kind), he truly does experience heartbreak, which isn't always taken as seriously when young people go through it. The Sufjan song at the end accompanies his sadness in the most perfect way, and choosing to stay on that shot and have the credits roll next to him was a completely brilliant choice.

Also, Luco Guadagnino said he wants to do a sequel, which I could definitely see working in a Before trilogy kind of way, because these are interesting characters who would probably live a few different lives in the years ahead. Apparently the book talks about their later lives as well, so there you go.

Ingrid Goes West

Ingrid Goes West

This is a refreshingly different indie kinda-comedy-kinda-thriller that's written by someone who actually understands social media.

Ingrid is an Instagram stalker played by Aubrey Plaza. After striking out with her most recent Instagram obsession, she sets her eyes on up-and-coming Instagram star Taylor, who lives in LA. Ingrid moves to LA, and things escalate from there.

I've been a fan of Aubrey Plaza's since Funny People, and of course adored her on Parks and Rec, so getting to see her play a completely different kind of character was an absolute treat. She rides the line between scary and sympathetic at all times, while showcasing a wide range of emotions that will hopefully get her even more dynamic roles in the future. The rest of the cast is also quite good, particularly O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Ingrid's screenwriting, Batman-obsessed landlord, getting way more laughs from me than I expected. Elizabeth Olsen plays her grounded part well, but since she's playing the somewhat "normal" character it's much more difficult for her to be memorable.

This film nails Instagram in both aesthetic and actual use. They use the perfect locations, fashion, color palette, and captions to make the movie feel like a real Instagram commercial, just a lot more unsettling. It's also a great example of using social media accurately in a film. Lots of modern movies that use social media are written by people who don't actively use it, and it often shows. But Ingrid Goes West not only knows exactly how Instagram works and what the people who get famous using it are often like, but how to use it as an effective tool in telling its story by essentially having it function as a tracking device.

My only complaint with this movie is the same one I always have: I wanted them to go further and crazier. The first half of the film is an excellent ramp-up that's smart and puts us exactly where we want to be in the story in ways that are both logical and interesting. But once it goes past a certain point, it needs to really escalate. Without going into spoilers, things start to go crazy with a fairly shocking event, but that ends up being the peak of the movie's insanity. Once they hit that point in the story they had free reign to go as far as they wanted, whether it be thrilling, hilarious, horrifying, or all of the above, but instead they chose to just have it come back down. While the ending is quite good and fitting for the theme of the film, it didn't feel very satisfying because the second and third acts didn't feel very eventful. I understand that the film was trying to be grounded, but it always seemed to have one foot in reality and the other in absurdity. My advice would have been to not keep both feet in the same place for the entire film, and instead have a steady shift from reality, to the line between reality and absurdity, to full-on Nightcrawler-level absurdity. It's riskier, but it would also create a much bigger payoff.

I'd recommend this movie to those looking for something new and different, and also to anyone who frequently uses social media as it's both an accurate representation and a fun cautionary tale. But if you're looking for something truly thrilling and crazy, you won't quite get it here.

Colossal

Colossal

Anne Hathaway is Gloria, a screw up with a drinking problem who gets dumped by her boyfriend and is forced to move back to her hometown. As if things couldn't get any worse, she then finds out she's subconsciously controlling a giant monster that's destroying the city of Seoul, South Korea.

This is a really wonderful premise that's very difficult to pull off because of its inherent indirectness, and overall the movie does a solid job of executing it. It's not necessarily great, but it's certainly not bad either.

Anne Hathaway is a very divisive actress, which I've always found to be bizarre because, at least from my point of view, she's consistently good and occasionally great. However, I don't think she was really right for this part. The burnt-out party girl sounds like something Anne Hathaway could potentially pull off, but for whatever reason she doesn't seem to add very much personality or charisma to this character. She plays Gloria as an awkward, stuttering mess when it would make more sense for her to be a flailing, spectacular mess. I'm sure this is what the director/writer Nacho Vigalondo wanted, perhaps to highlight her eventual arc, but I think it makes her a less interesting character and it ultimately dulls Hathaway's performance. The Red Letter Media guys suggested Gillian Jacobs might have been better for the part, and I agree that she'd nail it.

Jason Sudekis, on the other hand, is fantastic. I can't say why, because his performance is a spoiler in itself, but this is the best acting I've ever seen him do. Hopefully this'll get him more interesting gigs, because he definitely deserves it.

The other aspect I'm not big on in the film is the explanation of Gloria's connection to the monster. Not because it was a bad explanation, but because it fails to understand that there's a place for answers and there's a place for ambiguity. An example of a great place for answers is Breaking Bad, because it's so grounded in reality, and an example of a great place for ambiguity is literally anything by David Lynch. Some movies and shows get these things mixed up, like when It Follows give answers and rules to its premise when instead it should be shrouded in mystery, because that's far scarier and falls more in line with the ideas it's presenting. Colossal should be more ambiguous because it's entirely centered around a fantastical premise. No one needs to know the backstory of why Gloria controls the monster, because that's not the point.

The rest of the movie is a solid dramedy with a handful of really great, memorable moments. I'd say check it out if you're in the mood for something refreshingly different. It's not brilliant or mind-blowing, but it's a cool idea and it's fun to see it come to life.

The Trip to Spain

The Trip to Spain

This is the purest Trip movie so far.

For those who don't know what this is, this is the third in what I assume will be a continuing series of films centered around British comedians Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon going on holiday together. They do bits, impressions, and argue, but mainly they do all three at the same time. This time they go to Spain.

My issue with the previous two films is when they try to shove in dramatic plot and it causes the films to feel unbalanced. I like the Linklater-esque premise of just two middle-aged guys going on vacation together and having funny conversations and debates about life. There's no need to see how sad Steve Coogan is about not getting the job that he wants or having a flakey girlfriend, just focus on the relationship between these two friends. While this one does have a handful of dramatic moments that still come out of nowhere, it's far less distracting.

While I do love watching Brydon and Coogan argue and get angry at each other, this is them just having a good time together and it's every bit as fun. Their impressions are better than ever, and there's even some new ones (I had never heard a John Hurt impression before this, but Coogan's is definitive), and the bits that they do with their impressions are creative and genuinely funny.

The cinematography is gorgeous, and of course the whole film operates as a living brochure for visiting Spain. This is a country that I honestly know hardly anything about, so getting to see footage of the cities, nature, and people was both an educational and lovely experience.

This is another one I don't have much more to say about. Watch it if you're looking for something light, funny, and/or British.

I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore.

I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore.

I don't have a whole lot to say about this one because I just enjoyed it.

The brilliant and underrated Melanie Lynskey and Elijah Wood (making this an unlikely but much-needed Over the Garden Wall reunion) star in this Netflix original film about a woman who just wants people to be good, and all the consequences that come of it. I won't give away much more than that plot-wise, because it's full of all sorts of funny, dark surprises.

Lynskey and Wood both play funny, distinct characters with unique personalities and clear goals, and they make a wonderfully weird duo together. All of the performances are delightfully strange and memorable, from good guys to bad guys to everyone in between.

The most specific thing I'll say about the movie is that Lynskey's character Ruth is deeply relatable. Her frustration and disgust with "people being assholes" has never been more universally felt than right now. I find myself ranting about negative human behavior far more often than I would ever want to these days, so seeing Ruth have those same thoughts and rants in this film makes me feel validated and far less crazy and alone. Ruth is every person in America who has empathy and can't fathom why anyone would go out of their way to treat others poorly. She's not a natural cynic a la Daria or April Ludgate, she's become deeply depressed and hopeless because of bad people. It makes her journey all the more engaging, because if she succeeds it means that there's hope in the universe and a concrete reason to live.

It's also important to point out that the whole film feels very much like a modern indie Coen Brothers movie. Some tropes include: atypical violence, a protagonist with one simple goal and is taken into the depths to achieve it, oddball bad guys, unexpected darkness, unexpected humor in said unexpected darkness, funny dialogue, taking place somewhere in middle America, some clever cinematography and editing, etc.

And...nope. Can't think of much more than that. Go watch it!