Windfall is a home invasion thriller about a mysterious man "Nobody"(Jason Segel) who breaks into the vacation home of tech billionaire "CEO"(Jesse Plemons) and "the wife"(Lily Collins). Nobody is caught when preparing to leave after squatting for an unspecified amount of time when he then takes the couple "hostage" although he does not have a weapon nor behaves particularly threateningly. The trio spend the next day and a half together as CEO attempts to get cash delivered per Nobody's demand. The three meander around the property and talk while they wait.
Plemons gives it his all and that's commendable, he's an amazing talent but despite all his effort the character comes off as mostly flat and misses whatever satirical mark aimed for. Collins is given very little to do which is unfortunate, she has talent and she has presence, but here she is relegated to some regressive trophy wife role, which, even if realistic in some broader societal sense, is unjustified in its inclusion within the narrative. Segel, who has is charms, is in full on brood mode and it simply does not work. He is clearly trying very hard to be mysterious and layered but the result doesn't go beyond middle school truculence. All in all, not a fault of the cast but the script, the characters are boring. Like their "names" they speak in vagaries with the intent of allegory or satire but the result is simply muddled uncompelling ineffective storytelling.
The location, at least, is quite striking and there is a pleasing crispness to some of the production elements however the script is painful, pretentious, psuedo artistic, unrealistic, meandering and just all around immature. The tension, such as it is, is so devoid of stakes and so detached from reality it is no surprise it was conceived by a group of privileged white men who, ultimately(or at least apparently), have no real knowledge of socio-economics or class, who have never been in a situation of real threat or violence. Director/co-writer Charlie McDowell recreates many of the irritates from his previous movie The One I Love ie unlikeable/unreal characters engaging in protracted sophomoric discussion while unjustifiably meandering around a relatively nice rental property. In the end the question is what does it offer? And unfortunately the answer is virtually nothing. There is no insight, there is no truth, there is no action, there is no pleasure to be had.
It fails as art because it tries to hard to be that, it fails as entertainment because nothing much actually happens.
Currently streaming on Netflix.
Don't See It.
The Batman is a superhero movie, a reboot of the Batman franchise. Robert Pattinson plays the titular caped crusader with more brooding, more sensitivity, more petulance, and more overt crime-solving intelligence but with a similar rage as the Bale incarnation. Thankfully an origin story isn't played out beat-for-beat and its mostly inferred. Batman is on the trail of the Riddler(Paul Dano) who is killing a series of corrupt city officials. But the case is more complicated and wide ranging than it first appears.
Pattinson brings a unique take to the character and that's refreshing, with a landscaped clogged with superhero movies and even flicks with this particular character its nice and necessary for this to feel if not totally new at least different. Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman is great if somewhat underdeveloped, and that can be said of most of the impeccable cast- Dano, Jeffrey Wright as James Gordon, John Turturro and Colin Farrell as gangsters, Andy Serkis as Alfred et al- ultimately there is simply too much going on, too many characters, too much story to form a clean narrative.
Visually dark and rich with some fun anachronistic architecture, vehicles, and costuming and an effective repeating score that's one note shy of the Imperial March from Star Wars. Although Chicago is and will always be Gotham, London is a passable substitute. The production is all very assured and transportive, no surprise coming from writer/director Matt Reeves, but what also comes as no surprise is the bloat. The movie is too long, has too many villains, and too many climaxes. For a portion of the narrative the patient pacing is reflective of the content, it is more a mystery/thriller than an action flick, and that's great. But somewhere after the two hour mark it attempts to trade up to full blown fights and explosions and it doesn't really track, leaving the final city-destroying climax to fall flat and be rendered relatively unnecessary. It seems Reeves has been pinning for the Batman for so long he didn't want to risk not getting a sequel so packed as much as he possibly could into this installment and the movie as a whole suffers.
A lot to like, a fair amount to get bored with, a stunning lack of restraint both from the screenplay and the editor. 40 minutes too long.
Currently in theaters coming soon to VOD/HBO Max.
Rent It.
Drive My Car is a drama that follows Kafuku(Hidetoshi Nishijima) an actor and multilingual theater director. The extended prologue follows him and his wife Oto(Reika Kirishima) and serves to set up the context of the main narrative which is Kafuku directing a production of Uncle Vanya in Hiroshima. Because of his glaucoma Kafuku's is assigned a driver Misaki(Tōko Miura) and the two develop a connection as Kafuku works on the production and with the eclectic cast.
Nishijima does well as the lead and has a lot to shoulder, in the mold of the prototypical Chekhovian protagonist, he is contemplative, mournful, but not without absurdity and humor. More dynamic though is Miura whose character has more dimension, more reality, and therefore much more impact. Another highlight is Park Yu-rim as Yoo-na one of the actors in the production who is mute and communicates(and performs) with South Korean sign language. Where the film really hooks(about an hour in, it's a long slow burn) is with Yoo-na's audition, the vitality and effect of that scene is electric and serves to jump start the film where before it is relatively sedentary and morose. The supporting cast are all excellent save for the one discordant note of Takatsuki played by Masaki Okada who, whether because of the performance or as written, is overly oafish, boorish, and boring for seemingly no purpose and without reality aside from necessary plot machinations.
Gorgeously shot, elegantly scored, with recorded lines from the play serving as diegetic commentary/narration, the production design is transportive. The extended prologue is a challenge not only in its length and thin connection to the larger narrative but also it's bleak, baffling, immature tone. There is a throughline of extenstionalism that runs through Chekov so its not surprising but in the modern era the kind of "what does it all mean" meandering feels very undergrad philosophy student. And the sexual themes addressed are perhaps more poignant in Japan but not particularly illuminating or interesting from a US perspective. That all being said there is a lot of rich emotion, complicated dynamics, and inspiration to be found particularly with the journeys of Kafuku and Misaki and their relationship. The inspection of theater as an art form and how its filmed and portrayed is also incredibly effective and unique.
Ambitious, stirring, if(like life) imperfect, and perhaps that is intentional.
Currently streaming on HBO Max.
See It.
The Adam Project is a time travel action movie about Adam(Ryan Reynolds) who flees 2050 to go back to the past, find his lost love Laura(Zoe Saldaña), and thwart Maya(Catherine Keener) a corporate titan in control of time travel and who has used it to consolidate power. He crashes in 2022 and connects with his younger self Adam(Walker Scobell) who he needs in order to repair his ship.
Reynolds plays his role a bit more straight and jaded, a nice departure for him, and its his counterpart Scobell who gets more of the wise-cracking humor. Scobell does a suprisngly effective psuedo-Reynolds impression and the two have a nice, easy chemistry. Keener is always a joy to see but doesn't get a ton to do as the heavy. Saldaña, also just a pleasure to have onscreen, has, in essense, an extended cameo but makes the most of it with some kick ass action. Jennifer Garner and Mark Ruffalo round out the cast as Adam's parents, each bringing some necessary emotion and grounding the narrative to balance the more heightened genre elements. No one is being asked to do anything particularly challenging but it all works.
Visually(and tonally) a bit more somber than director Shawn Levy previous Free Guy, it has a serious edge but doesn't fall into doom and gloom. The action sequences are well choregraphed, there's enough of them to keep the momentum going, the CGI is if not seamless than judicious, the story has heart, if ultimately a riff/amalgam of things we've seen before. But it doesn't have any pretentions beyond that. It's trying to be a fun, propulsive blockbuster with an effective familial subplot, and it succeeds.
Straight up, uncomplicated, entertainment.
Currently streaming on Netflix.
Stream It.
Lucy and Desi is a documentary about the lives and careers of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. Through archival footage, still images, audio recordings, and a few brief talking head interviews the movie unfolds in a rough but linear chronology.
Overall the movie maintains a determined pleasant tone and deliberately does not inspect anything that might be viewed as controversial. As such it plays a bit like an educational video for middle school theater students. It's great to see the wide ranging clips from Ball's considerable body of work, personal audio tapes of her(and Desi) presumably provided by the family are also insightful, or at least provide information unattainable anywhere else. But for the most part, the movie does not offer anything that couldn't be better digested by simply watching "I Love Lucy" or reading the subjects wiki.
What's more apparent are the gaps- Desi's infidelity and substance abuse, the marital tension Ball's super stardom resulted in(and Desi's resentment/jealousy there of), Ball's position(deliberate or not) as a feminist boundary breaker, her talent and style in and of itself, her legacy, the effect their work ethic/fame had on them and their family, their mental health, their familial situations and codependence etc. are all not investigated or are only mentioned or referred to in the most cursory of ways. Which in some ways is fine if that's the kind of movie you want to make put it on Nickelodeon or Disney, however, the astounding talent, influence, and life of Ball is complex and deserves a nuanced dimensional investigation. The movie does not ask, what can we learn, it says only, remember this?
There is an issue even with the title itself, bolstered up by the heavy-handed saccharine score, which in essence packages this as a love story and attempts to give equal weight to both parties. This is diminishing, naïve at best and (perhaps unwitting) patriarchal revisionism at worst. Not to minimize Arnaz's contribution or his struggle or his impact on "I Love Lucy" or the TV industry at large however Ball is the icon, she is the legend. If you want to make a documentary about Ball, make it about Ball she deserves it, if you want to make it about the two of them as they are inextricably linked that makes sense, but get into it- get into their difficult marriage, get into the sexism and racism they had to grapple with both within and without, personal and professional, get into the actual humanity and artistry, get to the Truth. Because that's what film is supposed to do.
Soft, agreeable, lacking perspective.
Currently streaming on Amazon.
Stream It.
