"Tully" and "A Quiet Place"

Life as a new mother is difficult, and the movies generally shy away from the ugly realities of it.  Not so with "Tully," which puts all the exhaustion, the aggravation, the boredom, and the guilt involved with taking care of a baby at center stage.  Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody are collaborating again here to bring us a snapshot of the life of Marlo (Charlize Theron), a forty year-old woman with two children and an unplanned third on the way.  With a special needs kindergartener and a husband, Drew (Ron Livingston), who isn't much help, Marlo is pushed to her limits. Though initially wary, she accepts the help of her brother Craig (Mark Duplass), who gifts her with the services of a very special night nanny, Tully (Mackenzie Davis).  

The main event here is Charlize Theron's performance.  She gained and lost significant amounts of weight for the role, but the sheer amount of mental exhaustion coming off of her is what really sells it.  I've never seen any piece of media capture the descent into survival mode and the physical strain of newborn care the way that this film does. There's a wonderful montage that really hammers home the repetitiveness, the monotony, and the feelings of utter defeat that can result.  And when the film is in this gear, it's excellent. All of Cody's little observations about motherhood, microaggressions, and the impossible standards of modern parenting are great. So it's a shame that the larger story about Marlo's friendship with Tully, and her reckoning with her past, falls so very, very flat.  

Tully is the bestie version of the manic-pixie dreamgirl, a Millennial free spirit with a head full of interesting facts.  And it's only because the eminently lovable Mackenzie Davis plays her that I found her tolerable. I cottoned on to Tully's secret fairly early on in the film, which I don't think hurts the experience of watching it.  However, the film really bungles the reveals and the denouement, making the whole premise of the film come off is as ill-considered. "Tully" would be a much better film if it had committed to being about Marlo's struggles without trying to tie them to this broader crisis about her identity and psychological state.  I still love the first three-quarters of the film, and this is the best thing I've seen from Reitman and Cody in a while, but its flaws left me lukewarm on "Tully."

Now on to "A Quiet Place," which I debated over writing a review for, as I don't have too much to say about it.  It's an interesting little creature feature, firmly in the category of a good film, but not a great film. It's built entirely around a couple of good gimmicks and strong worldbuilding.  John Krasinski directs and stars as the patriarch of a family living in the aftermath of human society's destruction by sound-sensitive monsters. Emily Blunt plays his wife, and his deaf preteen daughter and younger son are played by Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe respectively.  

How do you live day to day without being able to make a sound?  Anything above a whisper attracts the monsters, so the family has to soundproof every aspect of their lives, from communicating through sign language, to muffling footsteps with trails of sand on walkways, to banishing all the dishes.  It's a lot of fun seeing all the different ways they've adapted, and clearly a lot of thought went into all the changes. The family has been mostly successful at keeping the monsters away from their isolated farm, but there are the inevitable gut-wrenching slip-ups and Blunt's character is pregnant, putting all of them in more danger.  The family dynamics are handled very well, with tensions between the father and daughter, and past tragedies hanging over everyone's heads.

The usual action and suspense sequences take over in the second half of the film.  These are inventive and enjoyable, especially the deft use of the sound design to escalate the tension.  However, the funhouse scares are pretty familiar, and the velociraptor-like creatures aren't all that exciting.  It's the performances that do much of the heavy lifting, and fortunately Blunt and Millicent Simmonds are excellent at channeling terror and fright.  "A Quiet Place" is pretty adept at being a delivery system for thrills, and the family drama aspects are very satisfying. However, the way the universe is set up, I don't think that it fulfilled the potential of the premise.  I was a little disappointed at how simple some of the resolutions were, and some of the opportunities not taken. I'm grateful that the movie offers a fairly unique cinematic experience, but I can't shake the feeling that this could have really been something special in other hands.  

---

"Game Night" and "Blockers"

I know I don't write enough about comedy on this blog, so today I'm going to make an effort and spotlight the two most prominent comedies from the first half of this year.  I liked them both, and find myself in the unusual position of actually hoping we get sequels, because I enjoyed the characters so much.

"Game Night" is about Max (Jason Bateman) and Annie (Rachel McAdams), who regularly get together with two other couples for game nights.  After Max's overachiever older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler) crashes one get-together, he insists on hosting the next one, a role-playing mystery game that involves Brooks getting kidnapped.  Or has he actually been kidnapped? Other players include seemingly solid married couple Kevin (Lamorne Morris) and Michelle (Kylie Bunbury), and the lunkheaded Ryan (Billy Magnussen) and his classy date Sarah (Sharon Horgan).  Then there's Gary (Jesse Plemons), the extremely awkward neighbor that everyone's been trying to avoid inviting to game night since he got divorced.

Jason Bateman has starred in several comedies that I've really disliked, so it's nice to see him in a good one, and paired up with a very charming and funny Rachel McAdams.  Most of the comedy here is character based, with some good gags, and it doesn't feel the need to harp on its R-rated content. The writing, by Mark Perez, is stronger and sharper than most, and there's some lively direction from John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein.  The opening and ending sequences offer a lot of fun visuals, and there's a nicely choreographed chase sequence with a Faberge egg at the end of the second act, helping to keep the momentum going.

It's Jesse Plemons who ends up stealing the show, however, as the awkward neighbor who nobody wants to hang out with.  He makes a very memorable weirdo, the latest in a great run of roles he's had over the past few years. Plemons is quickly turning into one of our most dependable character actors, and here he is a lot of fun to watch walking a thin line between possibly crazy and just your average garden-variety sad sack with really bad interpersonal skills.  There are also a couple of bigger names playing various baddies and secondary characters, but they're used in a limited way. I appreciate this, as comic actors I hadn't seen much of before, like Billy Magnussen and Lamorne Morris get more time to shine.

Now on to "Blockers," which is a subversion of the usual teen sex comedy in a couple of ways.  First, three teenage girls make a sex pact to lose their virginity on prom night instead of three boys.  Second, the movie is mostly told from the point of view of their parents, who learn about the sex pact and take it upon themselves to cock-block their offspring.  Yes, that is what the title is referring to. Leslie Mann stars as Lisa, the mother of the girls' ringleader, Julie (Kathryn Newton). Overprotective Mitchell (John Cena) and his wife Marcie (Sarayu Blue) are the parents of Kayla (Geraldine Viswanathan).  Then there's Hunter (Ike Barinholtz), who is a mess. He's divorced from his wife and estranged from his daughter Sam (Gideon Adlon), but still desperate to be part of her life.

It's important to point out that though the film is mostly from the parents' point of view, there's plenty of attention on the girls themselves, working out if they actually want to lose their virginity, and with who.  They talk frankly about sex, drugs, and alcohol, and are an appealing mix of different personalities and types. Sam is a geek and Kayla is an athlete. Seeing their adventures during prom night in counterpoint to the ones their panicking parents are having is a big reason why the film works as well as it does.  The moral is, of course, that the girls should make their own choices and their own mistakes, and having that emotional investment really helps that sentiment hit home.

As for the adults, Leslie Mann has been one of my favorites forever, and it's great seeing her play off of John Cena, in cuddly strongman mode, and Ike Barinholtz, who gradually reveals that his character may be the most reasonable of the bunch.  The script gets a lot of mileage out of maneuvering the straightlaced parents through teen sex comedy scenarios, and there are some gross-out moments and cringe humor that I found a little excessive. However, the leads were strong enough that I didn't mind too much.  And I'll be happy to see them reunite for the inevitable "Blockers Spring Break" or "Blockers Greek Week" in a year or two.

---

A Fumbled "Fahrenheit 451"

Ramin Bahrani is a great filmmaker, best known for a certain type of small scale, socially conscious film. "Fahrenheit 451" is his first real foray outside that milieu, and it's a pretty clear failure. It is, however, an interesting failure. Ray Bradbury's work has been notoriously difficult to translate to the screen, often because the pleasures of his writing lie more in the prose than in the plot. The Francois Truffaut 1966 film version of "Fahrenheit 451," though relatively faithful, had some glaring issues hampering its effectiveness. Half a century later, the story is more relevant than ever, and a new, updated film version seemed like a very good idea on paper.

How Bahrani and co-writer Amir Naderi decided to update the story of the Firemen who burn books, however, leaves a lot to be desired. Some of their creative decisions are fine - Michael B. Jordan makes a decent Guy Montag, and Michael Shannon is all you could ask for as his self-hating superior, Captain Beatty. The addition of social media and live-streaming as new distractions in their dystopia make a certain amount of sense. However, the free-thinking innocent Clarisse becoming a police informant and member of an underground movement of knowledge-saving "Eels" is more concerning. She's also Montag's explicit love interest, and played by Sofia Boutella. And then there's the wholesale invention of a sci-fi MacGuffin that forces a showdown between the Firemen and the Eels over the fate of human knowledge.

The whole thing reeks of the story being dumbed down and sexed up to appeal to the baser tastes of a mainstream audience, one of the very things that the book warned against. Perhaps this isn't such a surprise considering this version is a television movie. However, it's HBO footing the bill, with a notable filmmaker in full creative control. Usually that means we get better results than this. With loose adaptations of difficult material, I'm all for ignoring the title and trying to take a piece of media on its own terms, and treating it like something original. However, the movie is a messy, half-baked disappointment even by that measure. There are roughly similar "Black Mirror" and "Electric Dreams" episodes that outdo the new "Fahrenheit" by an embarrassingly wide margin.

The primary issue is with the script, full of strange dead ends and unfinished thoughts. Captain Beatty transcribes and puzzles over quotes from forbidden books in private, a transgression that never really seems to have anything to do with his actions or illuminates anything about his thoughts. Clarisse has terribly unclear motives throughout, often seeming to act against her own interests. Montag is given a new hidden past to have flashbacks to, but they lead to no real resolution. The stolen books he reads give him reason to ask new questions and value knowledge, but he remains oddly opaque and shallow throughout. Michael B. Jordan's performance is fine, but I feel like I missed his character's transformation.

I have to wonder why the character of Montag's wife was removed from the film, because her absence leaves a gaping hole both narratively and thematically. Now there's no vapid, illiterate dullard to compare Clarice against or to show the terrible consequences of a world where mindless distractions have totally replaced critical thought. An actress was announced for the part months ago, so I imagine that at some point Bahrani decided she wasn't working and cut her from the film. Hower, he didn't replace her material with anything equally compelling, instead streamlining the rest of the story into a generic action/adventure narrative.

There are flashes of ambition here and there. The characters spend quite a bit of time appreciating the written word, especially Dostoevsky "Notes From the Underground," which Montag reads excerpts from. Shannon's performance is very memorable, though the character is ultimately a disappointment. I even found the Montag and Clarisse romance promising, but the film doesn't really commit to that storyline either. Montag and Beatty's relationship is the one that is treated as the most important one at the climax, but it's never developed enough to give us a sense of real stakes.

Frankly, there was a significant amount of work that had to be done before this version of the film should have been attempted. As is, this is a sad waste of good material and a wonderful opportunity.
---

Revivals I Want, and Why They Won't Happen

I've toyed with writing some version of this post ever since the revival trend really got under way with the return of "The X-files." However, a wishlist of cancelled shows seemed to be just asking for trouble. Most of the time, revivals aren't a good idea, because the shows in question left the airwaves for a reason. However, as time has worn on, and we've seen more of these revivals come and go, it's clear that the networks have certain ideas of what should be revived and what shouldn't.

So now, I'm going to tentatively discuss a few of the shows I'd like to see rise from the dead, and why this is unlikely to happen based on the revivals that have happened so far.

"The Middleman" - Let's start with an easy one. This 2008 ABC Family geek comedy was near and dear to my heart from the moment it premiered. It ran for twelve episodes and published its finale in comic book form. However, there is no conceivable reason why ABC or anyone else would want to revive this. The show has a its fans, but they're a small number, and have remained a small number in the decade since the show went off the air. There are a lot of shows in the same vein like "Alphas" and "Pushing Daisies," that were gone too soon and I want to see get second chances. However, the networks have made it clear that revivals are not about second chances. They're about bringing back established hits, especially nostalgic sitcoms with their original stars. "The Middleman" can't even offer that much. Of its two leads, one is starring in a Mike Schur sitcom for NBC next year, and the other quit acting some time ago to be a biologist. Yes, really.

"Angel" - I'd love to see a return to the Whedonverse, and both "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" were successful enough in their day to tempt network executives, unlike poor "Firefly" and "Dollhouse." They've also done quite well in comics format, with the "Buffy" series still ongoing, currently in the middle of Season Twelve. I suspect that a revival of "Buffy" might be viable if enough of the talent can come together - most of the core cast seems to be between major projects at the moment. "Angel," however, is another story. There's no getting away from the fact that David Boreanaz is nearly fifty, and two decades older than he was when he first started playing the immortal vampire character. It's far more likely that the whole "Buffy" universe will see a reboot eventually, like Fox has been gunning for since at least 2010.

"Thundercats" - Specifically, I want to see a continuation of the 2011 revival that Cartoon Network produced with Studio 4°C. It had a serialized story, fantastic production values, and fun takes on the original characters. Despite all signs pointing to the show having a lot of story left to tell, it never came back for a second season, and the creators eventually told fans what their plans were for the rest of the series. Now Cartoon Network has decided to go in another direction entirely, and has ordered "Thundercats Roar!" Patterned after the massively successful "Teen Titans Go!" the new series will be aimed at a much younger audience, be a comedy series rather than an action series, and utilizes a, um, perhaps too familiar art style that has caused something of a ruckus in the Twitterverse among animation enthusiasts.

"Friends" - Okay, so if '90s sitcoms are the main target of revivals, how about one of NBC's most successful ones? "Seinfeld" already kind of had a reunion/revival on "Curb Your Enthusiasm," and "Will & Grace" is doing great. The trouble with "Friends" lies with logistics. Either everybody comes back or there's no reason to do it. And I find it doubtful that NBC is going to be able to wrangle all six lead actors back on to the same set soon. NBC chairman Bob Greenblatt doesn't think it's possible. None of the actors will definitively say no to a revival, but it's clear that nobody has much enthusiasm for the idea either. Maybe in another five to ten years after a few of their careers have cooled, we can revisit this.

---

Star Wars Spinoffs

"Solo" has come and gone. "Kenobi" and "Boba Fett" are likely, "Lando" is possible, and there's still hope for "Jabba the Hutt." The "Star Wars" spinoff films are currently on hold, but the speculation isn't. Below, are a few suggestions for other corners of the "Star Wars" universe that I'd like to see onscreen.

Young Leia - Leia is now officially a Disney Princess, and deserves her own movie. Remember that she was a resistance fighter who was handy with a blaster, and had to take charge of her own rescue in the original "Star Wars." That clearly points to a childhood that was more exciting than just being a posh royal. Alderaan seemed like a pretty peaceful place, but there's always room for some court intrigue. Also, Leia's early days would be a good chance to take a peek into the inception of the Rebellion, and maybe provide origin stories for other characters like Mon Mothma, Admiral Ackbar, and General Dodonna.

Young Mace Windu - There wasn't much that I liked about the prequels, but I was always curious about the history of Mace Windu. I like the idea of him or Qui-Gon Jinn in their early days having samurai-esque adventures way out in some less civilized star system. "Star Wars" was heavily influenced by Kurosawa's jidaigeki films, especially "Hidden Fortress," and I've always wanted to see the series embrace these roots a little more. A "Star Wars" version of "Seven Samurai" or "Yojimbo" feels like it would be appropriate. Then again, it's already heavily rumored that this might be direction that DIsney is going with the Obi-Wan Kenobi movie.

The Droids - So, I know there was already a "Star Wars" project that centered around the droid characters back in the 1980s, the obscure Saturday morning cartoon "Droids." Frankly, I think the idea still has some possibilities and that Disney could do much better. Let's use BB-8 as the main character this time, and give him (her? It?) their own adventure. It could be a prequel, detailing how it met Poe Dameron, or a tangential adventure taking place after "The Last Jedi." I also like the idea of a new "Droid" feature being done in CGI animation, in the vein of "WALL-E." We could also use more "Star Wars" media aimed at the younger fans.

The Bothans - When "Rogue One" first came out, I know I wasn't the only one who wondered where the Bothans were, many of whom famously died in order to bring the plans for the Death Star to the Rebels. Of course, I was misremembering, and those were plans for the second Death Star from "Return of the Jedi," not the first. I still want to know about those Bothans, especially since it's been revealed that they're these big, werewolf-like critters, they're spies, and they just sound badass all around. There's the danger of this story being a retread of "Rogue One," but surely there's room in the "Star Wars" universe for more than one heist picture.

Mara Jade - Some of the best imagery from the "Star Wars" franchise comes from the Empire, and I'd love to see a movie fully set in that world. However, the character I think it would be best to explore that through is the one member of the "Star Wars" Extended Universe I'd like to see brought back - Mara Jade, the Emperor's special agent. She's one of the most interesting female characters who ever appeared in anything related to "Star Wars," and frankly the new films could use more like her. The way the movies have played out make it unlikely to keep her original backstory intact, but with a little adjusting, she'd be a great antihero.

Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes - Finally, if Disney wants to go lighter and funnier, why not get the band back together? Specifically, the Cantina Band, made up of seven Bith from the planet Clak'dor VII. The aliens of the "Star Wars" universe haven't been used much in the new movies, but they're a major element that distinguishes the franchise from all the others competing for our attention. So get those musicians an unscrupulous manager, some groupies, and run-ins with shady characters on their road to fame and fortune. Let them get mixed up in bad business trying to raise the money to get their instruments out of hock. Or have 'em play Jabba's wedding.

The possibilities are endless.
---

"The Handmaid's Tale," Year Two

   

I seriously toyed with bailing out on the second season of "The Handmaid's Tale" after five episodes.  The show continues to be a very tough watch, with storylines full of abuse and oppression. I'd run across a few spoilers that suggested that the main narrative was going in directions I found very unappealing.  However, the show remains one of the most queasily topical, if not outright prophetic pieces of media currently running, and it's all exceptionally well done. In fact, the show I find myself constantly comparing it to is "The Crown."  Minor spoilers ahead.

This year of "The Handmaid's Tale" is still largely still following June/Offred in her role as handmaid to the Waterfords.  Most of the season's big developments involve her pregnancy and attempts to escape Gilead. We also follow Emily and Janine, who have been exiled to the Colonies as "Unwomen," and Moira who is living with Luke in Canada.  Flashbacks and new characters continue to shed light on Gilead's history and the current state of affairs. The character with the most interesting arc this year is Serena Joy, whose faith in Gilead is tested by several traumatic events and impending motherhood.         

I'm being very intentionally vague, because there are a lot of twists and turns this season that it's better not to know about in advance.  This includes major new characters, guest stars, and of course the state of June's baby. I was impressed by how much story the creators were able to pack into each episode, and the status quo often changes drastically from week to week.  Like "The Crown," installments are often built around certain events or characters in ways that let us see the wider social implications. The Waterfords going on a diplomatic trip to Canada obviously gives us an opportunity to see Gilead's relationships with its neighbors, but even the smaller incidents like a baby falling ill can highlight the painful contradictions and injustices of Gilead's society.  The show's writing is very good on both the micro and macro levels.

The acting continues to be a major draw.  Elizabeth Moss is still a powerhouse, but Yvonne Strahovski is on fire this year.  Serena Joy continues to be a contemptible tyrant who is fun to hate, but she's also occasionally sympathetic as she realizes how little power she actually has.  Her slow coming-to-terms with the nightmare world that she helped to create is equally as compelling as June's struggle to keep resisting. The two of them share a couple of really intense scenes together that make the rougher parts of the season worth powering through.  I don't think the other major characters had material that was up to the same level, though Samira Wiley and Alexis Bledel get a couple of good moments apiece. It's also helpful that there are none of the odd episodes focused on the male characters this year. Nick, Luke, and Fred are still very present, but the focus stays firmly with the women.

Unlike the previous season, this one is entirely based on original material, but it would be hard to tell if you were unfamiliar with the book.  The quality is very consistent, and in some ways I like this season better. Gilead gets fleshed out quite a bit, and there are multiple episodes with a ripped-from-the-headlines quality to them and echoes of the recent antics of the Trump administration, though some of this was apparently a coincidence.  Nevertheless, the show addresses current events in a way that few others do, and I find it very satisfying to see a piece of media that reflects how I've been feeling about the state of the U.S. lately. I also enjoy the unusually frank depictions of pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, and early motherhood.

And yet, the prospect of another season gives me pause.   I found the ending of this year's finale absolutely infuriating, even though I knew it had to happen.  There is a significant danger of "The Handmaid's Tale" becoming drawn out and repetitive if it keeps going along in the same vein.  I'd love to see how this tale concludes, but if it takes more than another season or two of depressive misery to get there, I may have to call it quits for good.    

---

Rank Em: "The Pirates of the Caribbean" Movies

Clearly, there are going to be more "Pirates of the Caribbean" films, considering the massive financial incentive and the fact that the last film had a very prominent sequel hook.  However, I think it's going to be a while. Star Johnny Depp is still embroiled in various scandals and the franchise has been in a critical and box office decline for the last two films.  So I think it's a good time to look back and take stock of the series, film by film. I've ranked them below from best to worst. And spoilers ahead!

"The Curse of the Black Pearl" (2003) - One of the best surprises that Disney ever sprang on us was the first "Pirates" film, an expectation-defying, wildly original adventure film that was so much fun to watch.  Captain Jack Sparrow was instantly iconic, and Depp was so good in the part that he was nominated for an Oscar for his efforts. I always felt that the young leads were awfully bland and some of the big battle scenes were too long and chaotic, but the humor was so effective, and the plotting and dialogue were so cleverly written by Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott.  There are sequences like Jack's introduction and "Why is the rum gone?" that are just flat-out classic. And that Hans Zimmer score? I couldn't get enough of it.

"At World's End" (2007) - I liked the third installment of "Pirates" considerably more than the second because it provided a clear and definite ending to the arcs of several characters, it was darker in tone, and it had a good, hateable villain.  Did you ever think you'd see a Disney movie that started with a kid getting executed? I also liked the business with Jack being stuck in a bizarre limbo, and everything to do with the Brethren Court. The action is super repetitive and drawn out, unfortunately, and the massive 168 minute run time makes it feel like a slog, especially in the back half.  The plotting also gets so convoluted, it's hard to keep track of what's going on. The set pieces, at least, are still a lot of fun.

"Dead Man's Chest" (2006) - Oh boy did I have some issues with this one, from the more slapsticky, cartoonish action sequences, to the endless callbacks to the first film, to lots of cringeworthy business with the island natives.  Who thought it would be a good idea to do cannibal natives in this day and age? Also, aside from Will going off to find his father, the character arcs for the other leads aren't very strong or well executed. Pairing Elizabeth and Jack in any capacity was a mistake.  At least Tia Dalma was pretty cool. And Davy Jones and the Flying Dutchman crew are still hugely impressive special effects creations. I like a lot of the setpieces here too, including the sequence with the hat-switching and some of the kraken attacks.

"On Stranger Tides" (2011) - Oh good grief, was that Sam Claflin playing the new kid?  He was so bland, I forgot he was in the movie. And there's plenty more that I'm sure I've forgotten, as there wasn't much in the movie worth remembering.  I wasn't too opposed to the idea of continuing the "Pirates" franchise, since I figured that it would be a nice opportunity for a quasi-reboot, as several characters were presumably given their happy endings.  However, the new batch just weren't much fun. Claflin and Kaya Scodelario's young lovers were pretty useless. Ian McShane's Blackbeard and Salma Hayek's Angelica didn't get much to do. The departure of director Gore Verbinski was a major loss, and it showed.  

"Dead Men Tell No Tales" (2017) - And finally, we come to the most recent "Pirates" movie, which was also the shortest and dullest.  Jack Sparrow's clowning got less and less effective with each movie throughout the series, and here you can really tell his heart's not in it anymore.   There's one decent action sequence at the start, and Geoffrey Rush's reappearance as Barbossa is very welcome. Alas, the rest is a bore. I also find it disheartening that the series is not going to leave well enough alone, and wants to pull just about everyone back from the original trilogy.  It might be fun for one last, big, nostalgic hurrah - but only if it's definitely the last one.

---