“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” Review

Never underestimate the power of a well-told story. That was the lesson I learned when I watched Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri last night.

To preface this review, I wanted to share that I initially had zero interest in watching this movie. I saw the trailer because I had no idea what it was, and I’m only slightly familiar with some of Martin McDonagh’s work (thought In Bruges was pretty good, hated Seven Psychopaths). Based on the trailer and reading about the premise, my understanding of the film was that it was about a woman who erects three billboards in the small town of Ebbing, Missouri that criticizes the police for not solving the murder of her teenage daughter. I thought to myself, oh great. A politically-charged movie in some of the most politically-charged times. I can’t wait to see Hollywood’s take on how they feel about white America and law enforcement. I pretty much went into this movie already thinking I was going to hate it, and guess what? I did.

This movie is written in a near comical fashion. All of the characters are caricatures of extreme stereotypes, especially that of the Ebbing Police Department. Every police officer is portrayed as utterly pathetic and immoral, completely incapable of actually serving and protecting their town’s citizens. The main character, played by Frances McDormand seems to be surrounded by unrealistically deplorable characters that seek to do nothing but cause suffering in her life. Most of the movie just sets itself up as an incredibly over-the-top criticism of law enforcement and how they literally do nothing but care for themselves. Everything that was happening in the movie sucked me out of the story because of how unrealistic everything was being portrayed. I thought to myself, if this movie continues to be this one-sided, this is going to be the worst movie I’ve seen all year. Then, out of nowhere, the movie completely redeemed itself with an amazing third act.

I’m not entirely sure how to explain the drastic turnaround for this movie, but I’ll try my best. It starts with the characters. Sam Rockwell, who plays one of the doofuses in the Ebbing Police Department, gives arguably his best performance I’ve seen from him. He goes from being an utterly unredeemable character to so much more, and his performance perfectly captures that. Frances McDormand also demonstrates her acting chops by giving an incredibly powerful performance that really seems to stretch her character throughout the film. Many of the characters that initially seem one-sided at first begin to show other facets of their personality that are fleshed out in a very authentic and believable way. Obviously I won’t spoil anything, but I think the movie does a great job of rewarding you for being patient with these characters, which result in some great payoffs for certain characters, regardless of whether it’s a happy or sad ending.

One thing to keep in mind is that this movie is a dark comedy, which is a very hit or miss genre for me. McDonagh specializes in this genre with his biting and sharp writing, which oftentimes works but can be divisive. The writing in this movie is very vulgar, but poignant. It’s also very funny throughout, even during the times when I felt miserable watching it. Although the first two-thirds of the movie are written in an infuriatingly one-sided fashion, McDonagh does an incredible job making everything come full circle. McDormand’s character no longer becomes the suffering saint, as she begins to do things equally as deplorable as the police officers. Rockwell’s character begins to not be such a doofus. Everything begins to unravel and the world isn’t so black and white anymore. The more I think about it, the more I begin to realize that the poor portrayal of the police department was intentional and not just the directors way of criticizing white America. It was his way of leading you on this story that seems so unrealistic at first, then really grounds you in the last third of the movie.

The best way I can comprehend the viewing of this movie is to see it like a fairy tale. In fairy tales, most characters are not very complex and have a very black-and-white view on things. They have one defining characteristic, and it is the driving force of everything they do. However, fairy tales often have powerful messages that are told with very simplistic characters. Three Billboards is very much a modern fairy tale, as it has very important messages on how we view law enforcement, crime, and other human beings. It also teaches us about reconciliation and forgiveness, and is done so very effectively. The film is told in a way that seems incredibly fictional at first, even though it’s grounded in reality. McDonagh’s direction with this movie really drags you through a sewer of crap that ultimately lead you to the room filled with treasure. While I think that the first two-thirds of the movie could have been less ridiculous, it did serve its purpose in really rewarding the viewer for sticking through with it.

I think I can confidently say that no movie has ever made me feel the things I felt like Three Billboards did. I’ve never hated a movie so much and then end up really enjoying it. While it did make for a very agonizing viewing experience, the payoffs in the end were worth it, even though I think some people will be put off by the ending. The story is written in a very powerful way that really caused me to think of my own prejudices and how I feel about people with different viewpoints. Criticism is good, and should be welcomed by all beliefs in life. Law enforcement is not perfect, and neither are those that they are protecting. This movie is a story about that, and how tragedy can oftentimes be humorous. This movie will definitely not be for everyone, but I think it creates a journey worth taking. It is a powerful story led by some Oscar-worthy performances, ultimately making for a dark comedy that captures the plight of our generation incredibly well.

Grade: B+/81

 

“Justice League” Review

Double post! I’ve been a bit behind on movies I saw a few weeks ago, so I’m trying to crank them out while they’re still fresh in my mind.

I feel like when it comes to a movie like Justice League, it’s hard to win anyone over regarding the fanbase it attracts. The rift between Marvel and DC Comics continues to grow, and those who have aligned themselves to one side have pretty much made up their minds on whether or not they’ll enjoy a certain comic book movie before they even watch it. At this point, DC is at a clear disadvantage as it unashamedly tries to play catch up to the well-oiled machine that is Disney. MCU fans will always have the critical acclaim and box office numbers to back up their arguments, and DC apologists will always blame the media and Marvel fans for being one-sided and not open minded. Warner Brothers has been trying to answer the call by producing more highly acclaimed comic book movies, and received lightning in a bottle earlier this year with Wonder Woman. However, because they are so desperately trying to play catch up, the producers at Warner Brothers have put extremely odd and pandering limitations on the movie in hopes of catering to the masses. Some of these weird limitations are as follows:

1. Making the team-up movie before everyone has their individual movies.
2. The movie has to be under two hours long, because films like BvS were way too long.
3. The tone has to do a complete 180, because there’s no such thing as a good comic book movie unless it’s light-hearted, crammed up the wazoo with jokes and brightly colored.
4. Excessive re-shoots (done by the established Joss Whedon).

With all of that being established, I found that this movie was really being set up for disaster. There was no way in my mind that it could conceivably juggle introducing up to three brand new characters and backgrounds, tackling the storyline of reviving Superman (sorry, I know this is considered a spoiler, but come on you knew this was happening), have them all work together and pave the way for future movies all under two hours. It’s just impossible! Well, given all of the roadblocks that the dumb producers at WB have put before…I have to say that this film is probably the best they could have come up with, and does an admirable job of not sucking.

In regards to the characters, some were pretty surprising and some were kind of expected. Ezra Miller’s portrayal of the Flash was hit and miss at times with the jokes, but the hits were surprisingly good. I found myself laughing quite a bit at some of his lines, which I definitely did not expect. I was also a fan of Jason Momoa’s interpretation of Aquaman, as they are definitely deviating from the comics and making him a more rebellious-rockstar type of character. It can be off-putting for some, but I think it gives the character of Aquaman lots of room to grow and mature, which actually has me kind of excited for James Wan’s Aquaman next year. Cyborg was kind of a let down but that was to be expected, as he’s pretty much used as the character to progress the story. It’s hard to relate to him or to like him really, as his weird CGI body makes him stand out a bit too much. Gal Gadot is great as usual, and Ben Affleck is still terribly stale. I know many people are fans of Affleck’s interpretation of Batman, and I don’t really blame them. He’s easily got one of the coolest Batman suits ever shown on the big screen, and he has a voice modifier so haters of Christian Bale’s throat-cancer voice are satisfied. However, with all that being said, that pretty much makes it so that he doesn’t need to do any particularly good acting with the cowl on, as all the effects will do it for him. Affleck really just has to nail down the part of Bruce Wayne, in which I think he does a pretty poor job. At this point, he just seems really disinterested in the role and all the rumors of him wanting out of the franchise doesn’t help him either.

The villain, Steppenwolf, has been regarded by critics to be one of the worst comic book villains of all time. I am in no way saying he’s good by any means, but I wasn’t entirely put off by his presence in the movie. He doesn’t look particularly good due to the weird CG, but his ambitions are simple enough for you to know where he’s coming from and why he wants to take over the world. I don’t really put him below any of the marvel villains, as most of them are pretty forgettable and unrelatable. I think this part of the movie gets an unreasonable amount of hate.

Visually, the movies looks a lot different than it’s BvS counterpart. It’s wholly embraced the comic book look, which isn’t that bad. It definitely looks a bit more cartoony, specifically that of Gotham City, but it’s done in a way that makes their world kind of immersive. Tonally, it’s also done a 180 and there’s definitely a whole lot more “joy” inserted into this movie. I don’t think the jokes work as consistently as they do in Marvel movies, but some of the parts are pretty funny and it definitely lessens the danger set before them in the film.

The action in Justice League commits the same sin that Wonder Woman does, in that there is too much slow motion. For a movie that has the fastest speedster of all time, I figured they’d use more quick effects for his action, but a lot of it is also in slow motion. I found that to be quite a shame, because I thought the special effects of him zipping around to look pretty great. There were no standout moments when it came to action, but it was decent enough. I think they’ll just need a few more movies to nail it down.

Obviously, the story is where the movie takes the biggest hit. Trying to juggle introducing the Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, and all of their supporting cast under two hours is a gargantuan feat. I honestly don’t think it can be accomplished in a competent manner. More than half of the movie seems like a setup for the thrilling conclusion, but surprisingly it wasn’t that bad. It was entertaining enough for its entirety that it didn’t feel like it was dragging for long periods of time.

Overall, this should not have been a good movie by any means. It should have crashed and burned and been worse than BvS, but yet it still managed to put together a genuinely entertaining and decent product of a poorly-conceived idea. It was an entertaining movie, and exceeded my expectations on mostly all fronts. I don’t remember if I’ve stated this in previous reviews, but I’m more of a DC fan over Marvel just based on the comics I’ve read and TV shows I’ve watched growing up (so please take what I say with a grain of salt). However, that doesn’t mean that I’m blind to a lot of the ways that the DCEU has stumbled. With that being said, given that I still had very low expectations, I do feel like critics missed the mark on this one. Based on the limitations that the producers at WB put on this movie, directors Snyder and Whedon both did an excellent job of what they had to work with. I wouldn’t say this movie is a great comic book movie, but it’s a step in the right direction. What comes next is for them to fully commit to what they’ve established, but with the weak box office numbers, we’ll see what lies in store. Overall, I’d say it’s a move not worth writing off immediately, and is entertaining enough to see in theaters.

Grade: B-/75

 

“Lady Bird” Review

My my, this year just keeps getting better and better!

Lady Bird is a movie from newcomer director Greta Gerwig, and it’s about a girl named Lady Bird in her senior year of high school who desperately wants to get out of Sacramento. This movie is very much a love letter to the city of Sacramento, which is where Gerwig herself hails from.

This coming-of-age story is pretty unique in that it doesn’t really have a central story, but rather focuses on bits and pieces of Lady Bird’s life. Lady Bird, played by Saoirse Ronan, is a wonderful revelation of both adolescence and maturity, as Ronan is able to play the part of a rebellious high school girl so terrifically. I consider myself a fan of her work, and I have to say that this is probably her best work. In fact, everyone cast in this movie did a terrific job. Lady Bird’s mom, played by Laurie Metcalf, is spectacular, and the relationship between the mother and daughter is captured so well in its authenticity. Lady Bird’s best friend Julie, played by Beanie Feldstein, is also an incredibly sweet and charming character. Everyone pulls their own weight in this movie, and the strength of this movie’s ensemble cast shines bright.

The direction by Gerwig is fantastic. I think the decision to focus on seemingly fragmented sections of Lady Bird’s life was a risky but ultimately rewarding presentation of this film. In the beginning, I felt a bit bothered by the pacing at times because the movie just seems to jump into things and hop to the next scene without much of a transition, but I think this was intentionally done to reflect the whimsicality of Lady Bird’s personality.

As funny as this movie is, there are also some very heartfelt moments. I definitely feel like the melodrama is much more subdued in this movie, as you really have to read between the lines and what the characters are saying to have it really resonate with you. That’s why the performances are so good, because I felt like there was a lot that you could tell based on how each character was acting. The parts that made me feel something really made me feel it, and I felt like it was very much earned due to the subtle presentation of it all.

Overall, the pacing of this movie still did bother me a bit, but I can’t knock the movie for the unbelievable amount of heart it has. The characters are all fantastic (except I think Timothee Chalamet’s character is a bit too generic and stereotypical), and it was just a great experience. This movie definitely puts Gerwig on the map as a fantastic debut from her directorial career, and I’m very excited to see what she does next.

Grade: A-/88

“Thor: Ragnarok” Review

Similarly to my Dunkirk review, I wanted to start out this review with a disclaimer: I’m generally not the biggest fan of the Disney Marvel movies. When I say that I’m not the biggest fan, it doesn’t mean that I dislike all of their movies (although some are bad), it means that I am usually not very impressed with them. This can be due to multiple reasons:

1. Opting to make movies of a more serialized style with a “stay tuned for what happens next” type of formula as opposed to telling well made, self-contained stories, which is the direct consequence of making shared universe movies.
2. Having weak villains.
3. Every movie feels the same, no matter which director is behind the film. It honestly feels like the producers at Disney are the real directors.
4. Setting the precedent that all comic book movies have to be “fun” and “lighthearted” in order to be enjoyable.

While I don’t want to spend all my time on the Thor review being on my soapbox, I wanted to address some of the things that I look for in most marvel movies. I think that my biggest gripe with Marvel movies is that they have all the tools and potential to make amazing comic book films, but I think that they play it safe too often and end up only making good movies. So when Thor: Ragnarok came along and was touted as a genre-changing, revolutionary and groundbreaking comic book movie, it had me intrigued.

Based on recent memory, pretty much every Marvel movie is met with near universal acclaim, and always has hyperbolic levels of praise. However, I’ve learned to go in with lowered expectations in order to enjoy each of them, because viewing them as the “best comic book ever” has often times burned me and my overall enjoyment of them.

I thought that director Taika Waititi’s Hunt for the Wilderpeople had a pretty unique charm to it, with some great comedic beats. I was interested in seeing how this would translate to one of Marvel’s lesser compelling characters, but he managed to pull it off. Ragnarok is easily the best in the Thor franchise, although that really isn’t saying much seeing as how I felt very meh about the first two movies. However, Waititi definitely exceeded my expectations and made Ragnarok an enjoyable movie.

This movie gave me similar vibes to Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, but it seemed to work a little better here. In Vol. 2, I felt like they were just trying to jam in as many jokes as possible, and it often got more annoying than funny. It’s similar in Ragnarok in that they double down on the humor (which I think was what critics referred to as the revolutionary genre-changing aspect of the film), but in this movie it was definitely more tolerable. It still got kind of tiresome at times, but enough for me to enjoy the pacing of the movie.

The villain here once again is pretty weak, as the movie actually tries to cram a lot of subplots in the first half of the movie. Hela, played by Cate Blanchett, is decent but doesn’t really have much to work with other than her SFX antlers. She’s serviceable enough to pose as some sort of threat, but I found her underwhelming most of the time.

The best part of the movie mostly comes from the interactions between Thor and the supporting cast. Thor’s relationship with Loki is more effective here, because it seems more real as opposed to when Loki was the biggest and baddest villain of the MCU. I never really bought into that, so it was better when the movie put him in a more sympathetic and misunderstood perspective. The addition of the new characters such as Korg and Valkyrie are also pretty good as well, especially Korg since he supplies most of the best jokes.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie way more than I thought I would. Is it a game-changer for comic book movies and the genre? Definitely not. It still suffers from similar pitfalls of all Marvel movies such as the lack of any true danger, and overabundance of humor to compensate for a deeper narrative, but the character development was pretty good and the action was fantastic. I would say this is one of the better MCU movies in recent years, and I think that Taika Waititi has a bright future with the Marvel franchise.

Grade: B/79

 

“Columbus” Review

2017 has truly been a special year when it comes to aesthetically pleasing movies.

Columbus, a movie about an unlikely friendship formed around the appreciation (or lack of appreciation) of the architecture in a small Indiana town, is very much an experiential film as much as it is beautiful. The two leads, Haley Lu Richardson and John Cho, are in two very different stages of life and facing two very different conflicts. However, their unusual friendship slowly grows as they tour the wonderfully crafted city of Columbus.

This movie bears a very striking resemblance to one of my favorite movies of all time, Lost in Translation. Going into this movie, I thought it would be more of a romantic type movie, but it’s more about a powerful friendship that was not expected. The two movies are similar in that regard in that the characters in the film have deep inner conflicts about things in their life, and it isn’t until they meet each other that causes them to question the choices they made and whether or not it’s really the best for them and the people around them.

Visually, this movie is one of the most beautiful films I’ve ever seen. The direction from newcomer director Kogonada is so expertly done in every scene. I hardly ever felt bored watching it throughout, even though it’s not exactly an “exciting” movie in conventional terms. Every shot feels so emotionally charged, whether that is a feeling of endearment or a complete emptiness caused by grief. There’s a lot of beauty in the symmetry and the asymmetry in every still shot. It almost feels like an Instagramer’s wet dream of a movie. I definitely felt like the shots of all the interesting architecture was able to convey opposite feelings on an emotional spectrum, which was very effective in telling the story of these two characters.

Haley Lu Richardson definitely steals the show in this film. You can tell she’s really putting a lot into her performance, and it shows in a great way. She’s a very charming character yet also has a vulnerability that she tries hard not to show. John Cho is pretty good here as well. I wouldn’t say he’s as good, but I think that’s more because his character serves a different purpose for the narrative.

My biggest nitpick of the movie is that I felt the writing was a bit too on the nose sometimes. Not all of the dialogue felt natural, and probably leaned more towards pretentiousness than organic. However, it didn’t detract me too much from the overall beauty of the film and what it was trying to say with its characters.

There have been so many breathtakingly cinematic movies this year. Dunkirk, Blade Runner 2049, Baby Driver, It Comes at Night, just to name a few, have all created such different approaches to how a movie can be filmed. With Columbus, I felt that the direction and imagery lent its hand to the story in such a powerful way that I didn’t think could really be possible based on the context of the movie. While I wish the writing could have been a little better, watching this movie reminded me of why I love watching movies in the first place. There’s so much you can do to convey an emotion and tell a story, and I hope that there will be more movies like Columbus that push the envelope of creative storytelling.

Grade: B+/85