Weekend Watch - Here

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch, where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest film from Robert Zemeckis, teaming him back up with Forrest Gump stars Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, Here, based on the graphic novel by Richard McGuire. The film takes a look at a single location in the world across time, using a single camera angle to present the many eras and stories of this single location, focusing primarily on the life of Richard (Hanks), who grows up and lives much of his life in the living room of his family’s suburban house – the film’s location. In addition to Hanks and Wright, the film also features Paul Bettany, Kelly Reilly, Lauren McQueen, Harry Marcus, Zsa Zsa Zemeckis, Michelle Dockery, David Fynn, Ophelia Lovibond, Nicholas Pinnock, Nikki Amuka-Bird, and Anya Marco Harris in varying roles throughout the history of the location. The film opened last weekend to mixed reviews from critics and audiences. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C; it’s a high concept, low execution film, but it’s not terrible.

Should you Watch This Film? There’s nothing in Here that demands to be seen on the big screen, but if you’re a fan of Hanks or the creative swings that Zemeckis takes, it’ll be worth catching when this film hits streaming (or Freeform on a Sunday afternoon).

Why?

                As a concept, Here is one of the most interesting and cool films of the year. Unfortunately, in its execution it fails to give audiences anything of substance, relying much more heavily on its gimmick than its story or characters to create a film worth watching, and the result is a film that certainly engages but leaves us with a relatively hollow film whose themes will most likely resonate with audiences whose life has already moved beyond learning the lesson that the film has to offer. Hanks gives a solid performance, but Wright and most of the rest of the ensemble feel fairly sidelined by the film’s commitment to jumping between stories and timelines and to revolving its story around period and generational norms. The film’s women are mostly held in reserve, playing generic mother figures for the most part, and even fun-loving Stella Beekman (Ophelia Lovibond) in the 1920s ends up as an eye-candy pinup girl rather than individual character with any agency. In terms of message, Zemeckis seems to want his audience to remember to take time to do what they love when they can rather than waiting for some nebulous future that is far from guaranteed. On one hand, this should be a resonant message were it not hampered by clunky theming around the limiting nature of children and families, especially for mothers, choosing to center regret as its primary emotional motivator rather than any positive emotion – indeed the one person who does seem to achieve the fullness of their dreams never really gets any time on screen once they’ve done so. Creatively, the single shot framing and even the time jumps do work to keep you engaged, I just don’t know that they’re enough to overcome a dated and stale story to make Here a film for everyone. If you do want to see it in theaters, you can probably still find it; otherwise, you can wait to catch this one on streaming or skip it until it shows up on television around Thanksgiving next year.

Weekend Watch - We Live in Time

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh starring romantic drama from director John Crowley (Brooklyn and Boy A) and writer Nick Payne (The Sense of an Ending), We Live in Time. In addition to Garfield and Pugh as the film’s romantic leads, the film also features Lee Braithwaite, Adam James, and Douglas Hodge in supporting roles. The film opened this weekend across the U.S. to solid audience responses and mixed critic reviews. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; great acting and a devastating story are held back from their fullest potential by some odd story choices.

Should you Watch This Film? Maybe. If you want a highly emotional romantic drama, this one definitely checks that box. If you have trauma related to fertility, I should warn here that this film does deal with that pretty intimately, so you’d be okay waiting to stream this one. For everyone else, it’s a good film, but not necessarily a great one, so I’ll leave it up to you.

Why?

                We Live in Time offers this year’s look at the dramas of romance and relationships, following a relationship from its creative start (Almut hits Tobias with her car and then takes him to the hospital) and then through the typical beats, a honeymoon phase full of sex and dramatic declarations, an early bump in the road about the different expectations regarding family, the reconciliation, and finally, walking through the challenges of a committed relationship together – in this case, cancer and struggles with fertility. Garfield and Pugh are phenomenal as the two leads, carrying it from start to finish with grounded performances that feel incredibly authentic and feature some strong romantic chemistry. Even the story of their relationship is itself compelling with some startlingly real moments that can hit incredibly close to home for people who have walked through similar experiences in their own relationships. The problem is that, for some reason, screenwriter Nick Payne decided that this needed to be presented as a nonlinear narrative, jumping between points in the couple’s relationship almost at random. It’s basically giving us three stories at once – the commitment to the relationship, the pregnancy and birth, and the cancer – which could work if one of those were selected as the main story and the other two treated as jumps forward and/or flashbacks. Instead, we’re given each as its own story unfolding in parallel, and we’re left with far less investment in the couple’s relationship than it otherwise could have been. If we had committed to just one story as the primary plot with the other two in support, I think this would be a true contender for one of the best films of the year because of how compelling and honest the story actually is as it unfolds. As it stands, Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh give great performances as we’ve come to expect from them; the story is compelling and real and connects on an emotional level, but the way the story is presented detracts and distracts from the impact that the film could have otherwise had. I wanted to love this film, but I just liked it. It definitely resonated with me and will be one that I think about for a while, but I think that’s despite its odd plotting choices rather than because of them. Andrew and Florence deserved a better plot for as great as their performances were. You won’t be hugely disappointed if you go see this film, just be sure to temper your expectations a bit.                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh starring romantic drama from director John Crowley (Brooklyn and Boy A) and writer Nick Payne (The Sense of an Ending), We Live in Time. In addition to Garfield and Pugh as the film’s romantic leads, the film also features Lee Braithwaite, Adam James, and Douglas Hodge in supporting roles. The film opened this weekend across the U.S. to solid audience responses and mixed critic reviews. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; great acting and a devastating story are held back from their fullest potential by some odd story choices.

Should you Watch This Film? Maybe. If you want a highly emotional romantic drama, this one definitely checks that box. If you have trauma related to fertility, I should warn here that this film does deal with that pretty intimately, so you’d be okay waiting to stream this one. For everyone else, it’s a good film, but not necessarily a great one, so I’ll leave it up to you.

Why?

                We Live in Time offers this year’s look at the dramas of romance and relationships, following a relationship from its creative start (Almut hits Tobias with her car and then takes him to the hospital) and then through the typical beats, a honeymoon phase full of sex and dramatic declarations, an early bump in the road about the different expectations regarding family, the reconciliation, and finally, walking through the challenges of a committed relationship together – in this case, cancer and struggles with fertility. Garfield and Pugh are phenomenal as the two leads, carrying it from start to finish with grounded performances that feel incredibly authentic and feature some strong romantic chemistry. Even the story of their relationship is itself compelling with some startlingly real moments that can hit incredibly close to home for people who have walked through similar experiences in their own relationships. The problem is that, for some reason, screenwriter Nick Payne decided that this needed to be presented as a nonlinear narrative, jumping between points in the couple’s relationship almost at random. It’s basically giving us three stories at once – the commitment to the relationship, the pregnancy and birth, and the cancer – which could work if one of those were selected as the main story and the other two treated as jumps forward and/or flashbacks. Instead, we’re given each as its own story unfolding in parallel, and we’re left with far less investment in the couple’s relationship than it otherwise could have been. If we had committed to just one story as the primary plot with the other two in support, I think this would be a true contender for one of the best films of the year because of how compelling and honest the story actually is as it unfolds. As it stands, Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh give great performances as we’ve come to expect from them; the story is compelling and real and connects on an emotional level, but the way the story is presented detracts and distracts from the impact that the film could have otherwise had. I wanted to love this film, but I just liked it. It definitely resonated with me and will be one that I think about for a while, but I think that’s despite its odd plotting choices rather than because of them. Andrew and Florence deserved a better plot for as great as their performances were. You won’t be hugely disappointed if you go see this film, just be sure to temper your expectations a bit.

Weekend Watch - Saturday Night

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Jason Reitman’s film adaptation of the 90 minutes leading up to the airing of the first episode of SNL, Saturday Night. The film stars an ensemble cast as the show’s ensemble of players and writers, including Gabriel LaBelle as creator and writer Lorne Michaels, Rachel Sennott as Michaels’s wife and show writer Rosie Shuster, Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, Ella Hunt as Gilda Radner, Dylan O’Brien as Dan Aykroyd, Emily Fairn as Laraine Newman, Matt Wood as John Belushi, Lamorne Morris as Garrett Morris (no relation), Kim Matula as Jane Curtin, Nicholas Braun as Andy Kaufman and Jim Henson, Cooper Hoffman as Dick Ebersol, Andrew Barth Feldman as Neil Levy, Willem Dafoe as Dave Tebet, and Matthew Rhys as Dan Carlin. The film, which chronicles most of the behind-the-scenes goings on of the sketch comedy show’s first night, opened this weekend. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B-; this is a good film, not a great one that could have been great with just a little bit more fine tuning.

Should you Watch This Film? If you are a huge fan of SNL and consider yourself an expert in the show’s history, you’ll probably love this film and what it does. If you have some knowledge of and interest in SNL, then you can find something worth watching in it. If you have no interest in the show, I don’t know what this film does that’ll endear it to you.

Why?

                Saturday Night is a mildly disjointed passion project from a director in Reitman who clearly loves and knows way too much about his subject matter. The actors all do a phenomenal job playing these iconic figures of comedy history, marking the film’s real high point. Story-wise, though, it feels like Reitman had too many fun facts that he wanted to include to really create a satisfyingly cohesive narrative, jumping between business drama, drug comedy, relationship dramedy, biopic, and celebration of SNL without any clear sense of direction until the final sequence, which suddenly becomes this feel-good underdog drama. If it was going for the disconnected feel of an episode of SNL, highlighted more by the entertainment that comes from watching talented people do what they do best than by any sense of message or stance, then it might still work, but I’m not convinced that that’s really what Reitman was going for here. Like an episode of SNL, there are some bits that hit and others that fail to resonate at all and you’re left wondering whether everything you just witnessed in the last hour and half plus was really anything more than an excuse for the performers to put their talents on display. The 16mm film cinematography looks really good, also lending itself to that style over substance that the film seems to be going for. Ultimately, it’s an entertaining but empty film with talent that still deserves to be seen.

                While all of the actors playing their various characters do great jobs in their roles, playing the comedy titans faithfully and skillfully, it’s the performances from the behind-the-scenes characters that really stand out as more than just phenomenal impressions. Rachel Sennott gives us a compelling look at the complex marriage between Lorne Michaels and Rose Shuster, playing Rose as this capable and self-aware woman who made the show possible. Cooper Hoffman gives an admirable performance as the young executive who supported Michaels and his show, Dick Ebersol, punctuated by a strong scene where he finally reveals the precarious situation that the show is in to Lorne in a seedily lit stairwell. It really is LaBelle, though, who holds the whole film down, carrying it with a portrayal of Lorne Michaels as I’m sure Michaels would like to see himself, a young idealist who can’t imagine failing regardless of what practical knowledge might suggest. Gabriel LaBelle is a rising talent, and I’m glad that he does such a great job in this leading role.

                While the film struggles with thematic cohesion like an episode of the show that inspired it, the performances and stylistic choices that Reitman makes still make Saturday Night a film worth watching, though mostly for fans of the show and its history as opposed to a truly broad audience. It takes some unique swings, and some of them even hit. You can find this film in theaters right now if it sounds like something you’d like to check out. I’ll leave that up to you.

Weekend Watch - The Penguin Episode ONe

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the debut episode of the television spin-off of 2022’s superhero hit The Batman – The Penguin. It describes itself as a series following Oz Cobb (the Penguin) as he tries to seize the power in Gotham City’s criminal underworld and picks up following the events of The Batman. The show stars Colin Farrell in the titular role, reprising his performance from Matt Reeves’s film, joined by Cristin Milioti as the daughter of the deceased mob boss Carmine Falcone, Sofia, Rhenzy Feliz as an inopportune henchman that Oswald picks up, Victor Aguilar, Mark Strong as Carmine Falcone in flashbacks, and Clancy Brown as the imprisoned mob boss Salvatore Marone. The show is also slated to feature performances from Theo Rossi, David H. Holmes, and Kenzie Gray. Its first episode aired this past Thursday with subsequent episodes releasing on Sundays starting next week. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; a strong, if slow, opening provides plenty to be optimistic for as the rest of the season unfolds, but I’m not going to guarantee anything just yet.

Should you Watch This Show? If you loved Matt Reeves’s The Batman and want to get a taste of that version of Gotham again, this is a must-watch. If you’ve been craving a good crime drama on television that doesn’t revolve around cops and lawyers, this also definitely checks that box, and it might also be a great prestige miniseries that everyone should watch by the time everything’s said and done.

Why?

                The Penguin’s first episode takes us deeper into the criminal underbelly of Gotham City, focusing on the grounded world of organized crime where Oz Cobb and his associates operate. It picks up immediately after the events of the film, giving unfamiliar audiences (what few there may be) a quick montage of news reports explaining the pertinent details as Cobb stands by a window overlooking Gotham, plotting his rise to power. The show then takes off with a literal bang as he finds himself scrambling to cover up a murder with the help of a hapless street criminal (Feliz’s Vic) who had the unfortunate luck of being caught trying to steal the Penguin’s rims. The remainder of the episode spends its time introducing us to the various characters who will no doubt become important players over the course of the season as Cobb visits mob mansions, prostitute-populated streets, drug factories, prison, and even his mother’s home in the suburbs as he attempts to shore up support in the city while gauging the wisdom of staying versus fleeing the inevitable gang war. Across it all, Farrell’s Penguin remains the central figure, playing all sides with just as much weight and squirrelliness as he had in the film, and we start to see the shape that this (mini?)series will be taking. The question of whether Cobb ends up more as a Tony Soprano or a Vito Corleone feels like the real drama of the series, and it should be a fun ride along the way.

                If there’s any major complaints to level against this first episode, it lies in its relatively slow pacing after a quick opening. It teases us with threats of mob violence and surprising turns, but so far all of the surprising turns have had very little lasting impact, serving more as tantalizing teases that never pay off as intensely as they possibly could. Obviously, this is the first episode of an eight-episode season, so they can’t be dropping every body and complicating the plot too much early on, but there will definitely be some fans who’ve come to the show more for its comic book premise than its mob drama who won’t be thrilled with the limited action of this debut. There’s enough twists and turns that have the potential to pay out into some interesting complications down the road that I’m willing (and even excited) to give the show time to cook up to its inevitably messy conclusion. Is this show going to dethrone The Sopranos or The Wire as the best crime drama in the history of television? Doubtful. Is it going to be the high action, high easter egg comic book show that Gotham was? Also probably not, but if you want a show that blends the energy of those two types of shows fairly well so far, you’d be hard-pressed to find something better.

                Led by a consistent Colin Farrell performance and the welcome addition of Cristin Milioti as his more ruthless foil, The Penguin promises to be a fun blend of comic book action and mob drama that might by your next favorite miniseries if it can follow-up on the many promises of its first episode. The next episode comes next Sunday (the 29th), and it should give us a better idea of the direction that everything’s headed. Here’s hoping it can come close to living up to the excellence of the film that inspired it.

Weekend Watch - Bridgerton Season 3

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest season of Netflix’s hit period romance series Bridgerton, which released the second half of its third season last week. The show, produced by television legend Shonda Rhimes (Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder), and created by her collaborator Chris Van Dusen, is based on the historical romance novels by Julia Quinn, which follow the romantic intrigues of the titular noble family and their compatriots in early 19th-century British high society. This season primarily adapts the novel Romancing Mister Bridgerton, which follows the romance between Colin Bridgerton (Luke Newton) and Penelope Featherington (Nicola Coughlan), although it implements elements from some of the other novels as well. This season sees the return of most characters and actors from the first two seasons (absent still Regé-Jean Page’s Duke Simon Bassett and Phoebe Dynevor’s Daphne Bassett) while also introducing Hannah Dodd as the previously absent Francesca Bridgerton, Victor Alli as Lord John Stirling, Daniel Frances as Lord Marcus Anderson, and Hannah New as Lady Tilley Arnold. Now that the full third season is out, plenty of people have started sharing their thoughts on it, so let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; where the first two seasons shone in their central romances, the third draws more on its supporting cast, which may or may not work as well for everyone.

Should you Watch This Show? If you’ve been a fan of the show from the start, this’ll continue to scratch that itch, and if you weren’t, it’s not going to do any changing of your mind.

Why?

                Bridgerton Season 3 continues in so much of what has made the show such a success – steamy romance, gripping drama, complex love stories, the Vitamin String Quartet, involved sets, beautiful costumes, and memorable characters who grow more complex with each iteration. It knows its identity and niche in the market and delivers yet again a hit for that broad subset of the streaming viewers. Unfortunately, it feels like a show whose writing is starting to get away from it, much as so many of the Shondaland shows do. Season 1 gave us a fascinatingly convoluted romance with critiques on society, gender roles, and even conceptions of marriage and nobility. Season 2 offered a subversive romance that also served as a redemption arc for a previously debauched romantic lead that somehow got us to sympathize with the fact that people actually can change. Season 3’s central romance tackles a much safer, more tried-and-true route of friends to lovers to enemies to lovers again, which tackles fewer social issues, though its subplots do feature some refreshing takes on how love looks different for different people, learning to forgive, and the self-sacrificial elements of family. It’s still a strong season of the show, but certain aspects of it feel less satisfying than in seasons past.

                In addition to the excellent production design, the performances remain strong with Nicola Coughlan, Claudia Jessie, and Golda Rosheuvel remaining the standouts. While the rest of the cast continues to fill their roles admirably, looking and sounding the parts that they are asked to play, these three women continue to grow their roles and inhabit their characters in ways that keep them iconic in every iteration. Rosheuvel’s portrayal of Queen Charlotte has become so iconic that it earned the character a spin-off prequel series, and she continues to be a dominating force who steals the screen not just with her wild hairdos but her gravitas and expressions in every one of her scenes. It’s a performance that easily becomes career-defining because of how memorable she has become. Jessie plays the second Bridgerton daughter, Eloise, who defies societal pressures as much as possible and had been Penelope’s best friend up until some drama at the end of the second season, and that break allows her to grow Eloise in new directions this season, showcasing her capability for repartee and satire on a new level than ever before without losing the sense of self and vulnerability that have made her such a lovable character. Coughlan also shines in her increased role this season; obviously, her comedic capabilities have never been in doubt if you’ve ever seen Derry Girls, but she brings a sensuality and authenticity to her romance this season that helps to sell the plot and keep the audience invested even when the writing is doing her story few favors. She is the moment, and she won’t soon let you forget it.

                Where the acting and production value remains at peak levels, the writing in this season has fallen off as the story begins to lose itself too often in the weeds, taking wind out of the central romance’s sails to puff it into a side romance for Francesca that seeks to set up what I assume will be one of Season 4’s two main plots (it’s a good romance, but it detracts from the main story unquestionably). It also spends a lot of time looking at the sudden entrance of the Mondriches into high society from their humble beginnings without actually offering much in the way of story for them besides feeling occasionally out of place. Cressida Cowper (Jessica Madsen) is given an entire character arc this season, but it feels so aggressively two-toned that I wouldn’t be surprised if they rewrote her whole character between the two parts of the season (maybe if I had watched the two parts farther removed, I wouldn’t have noticed the inexplicable shift in her character from part one to part two). Even the drama of Whistledown and her secret identity, which is inextricably tied to the romance of this season, doesn’t really hold your attention like it did in the first two seasons because of the increasing number of people who already know the secret. Really, I was satisfied with the story but never blown away by anything groundbreaking or soul-shattering like I was with the first two seasons, but the open plots that remain for Season 4 to explore leave me hopeful that we’ll get back to that success quickly.

                This latest season of Bridgerton continues to shine in the ways we’ve come to expect, if not quite so brightly in its story department, and it’s held up still by its leading ladies and a phenomenal production team. With the full season now streaming on Netflix, I’d recommend any who’ve been holding out after enjoying the first two seasons to go watch this one as well. If you’re someone who hasn’t watched the show yet, Season 3 is not the place to start, but I highly recommend the first two seasons as well, and if you’re someone who gave the first season a try but found it wasn’t for you, I can’t say that this one will suddenly change your mind. Figure out which of those categories you belong in, and then go and do what you want.

Weekend Watch - Challengers

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Luca Guadagnino’s Challengers, which opened in theaters across the U.S. this weekend. The love-triangle-tennis-movie hybrid stars Zendaya, Mike Faist, and Josh O’Connor as a trio of tennis stars whose interweaving professional and personal lives culminate at a small-stakes challenger event in advance of the U.S. Open. Scripted by Justin Kuritzkes (husband of Past Lives director Celine Song and creator of the “Potion Seller” YouTube video), directed by Guadagnino, and scored by the ever-talented Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, the film has received a slew of critical acclaim and decent audience reception as well. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; for the most part this film delivers what you want it to, and it’s all executed with excellence and innovation.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’re looking for an innovative sports relationship dramedy, this’ll be right up your alley; however, if you’re looking for that debauchery-fueled sex-fest promised in the trailers or a film with clear heroes and villains, you’ll be leaving at least slightly disappointed.

Why?

                Though perhaps a bit oversold in its marketing for broader audiences, Challengers delivers one of the better sports films and love triangle films in recent history. The performances from the three leads make for gripping romance, intrigue, and athletic sequences. Kuritzkes’s script provides a compelling story about the destructive forces of passion, jealousy, and insecurity. Guadagnino and cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom create a menagerie of charged sequences in both the interpersonal moments and the tennis matches, showcasing a creativity in shot choice that continuously leaves the audience dazzled. Reznor and Ross supplement it all with a score that breathes life, energy, and urgency into every scene, elevating the whole thing while increasing the plot’s sense of urgency. The film’s only real missteps come in the form of a predictable and maybe even overdone “twist” in the third act and a focus on the character relationships more than the characters themselves in the film’s story development.

                As a sports film, Challengers offers engrossing competition, compelling character drama, and a creative presentation of the sport of tennis itself, not yet seen in this way in mainstream films. It frames the game of tennis as a relationship, inextricably tying the sport portion of the film to the love triangle portion of the film, and it makes for even more intense competitions on the court and honestly one of the best climaxes and conclusions in any sports film, and certainly the best of the year so far. The ways that the camera is used in the tennis matches turns the sport into cinema, looking at each match from angles never seen before that keep the audience on edge for each serve, each volley, each point.

                As a relationship film, certain aspects feel a bit more familiar than the sport aspects, but it still manages to keep everything compelling, partially due to the direction of Guadagnino and the score of Reznor and Ross and partially due to the leads’ performances and Kuritzkes’s clear understanding of unhealthy relationship dynamics. Zendaya plays young star Tashi Duncan, a promising tennis star whose career is cut short by injury after she hits a rough spot with her tennis player boyfriend Patrick Zweig (Josh O’Connor), friend and rival of Mike Faist’s Art Donaldson who also has a huge crush on Tashi. The origins of their friendships and romantic entanglements are explored in nonlinear sequences of their interactions at youth tournaments and college before catching up to the present where Art is now a grand slam winner, coached by his wife Tashi, and where Patrick has fallen on hard times, struggling to find success as a tennis professional, seeking to qualify for the U.S. Open by winning the same challenger where Art has come to get his groove back ahead of the only grand slam that has yet eluded him. The ins and outs of Art’s development make for the most compelling portion of the film, as he goes from insecure also-ran to confident adult ready for the next phase of life while his rival and his wife remain their same childish selves, stuck in the what-ifs of the past. This lack of development for Tashi and Patrick has left some audiences less than thrilled with the film’s character development, particularly because their arcs culminate in a frustratingly predictable moment designed to lend extra weight to the film’s climax that really just reminds you just how little development they’ve had in comparison to Art. All three play their characters well, though, and the film’s conclusion in a relationship moment that highlights all three of their roles and sends each of them off on a high note certainly goes a long way in making up for the lack of attention paid to the actual characters of Patrick and Tashi.

                Challengers is a sexy, if not overly sexual, take on tennis films, couched in a love triangle relationship dramedy that’s skillfully executed by everyone involved with a few knocks against it for some overdone relationship tropes and weak character development, that delivers a satisfying and innovative take on sports films and plenty of relational melodrama to keep everyone invested. It’s not necessarily everything that the trailers promised that it would be, but that makes it, honestly, a better film overall, avoiding that desire to be transgressive simply to push the bubble while pushing that bubble in different ways than expected. It’s worth the watch if you’re into cinematic innovation, complex relationship dynamics, fun sports action, and films without any singularly perfect hero.

Weekend Watch - Saltburn

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Emerald Fennell’s highly anticipated sophomore feature Saltburn. The film follows a scholarship Oxford student as he spends his summer holidays at the estate of one of his wealthy schoolmates and slowly inserts himself into that world of wealth. It stars Barry Keoghan, Jacob Elordi, Archie Madekwe, Paul Rhys, Richard E. Grant, Rosamund Pike, Carey Mulligan, and Alison Oliver and opened last week to a strong response from audiences even if its critic reviews are only a bit mixed. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; so much of the film’s themes have been gone over time and again, but it executes them in such innovative fashion that you can’t help but be enraptured.

Should you Watch This Film? Maybe: filmgoers interested in a film that blends The Talented Mr. Ripley with Babylon are sure to be thrilled. People who find either or both of those films off-putting are probably in for a bad time, though.

Why?

                Saltburn delivers on its promises of exploring the excesses of the British aristocracy and the lengths that people will go to attain wealth through a twisted series of events. Fennell has delivered a depraved but highly entertaining story about class, education, and desire that is at its best when its actors get to show off the fullness of their characters’ idiosyncrasies and sociopathy. The film takes the premise of “eat the rich” to a whole new level that ultimately reads as much as a critique of middle-class social climbers as it does of the aristocracy that it puts on display. Keoghan, Elordi, Madekwe, and Pike, in particular, stand out in their performances, bringing the sexiness that the film requires to hold its audience’s attention as it dives deeper and deeper into the lifestyles of the denizens of Saltburn and into Keoghan’s Oliver’s need to be part of it all.

                In terms of its actual story, Saltburn is fairly reminiscent of Anthony Minghella’s The Talented Mr. Ripley, following a gifted middle-class college student who inserts himself in increasingly aggressive fashion into the life of his rich schoolmate and his friends and family. Keoghan’s Oliver Quick is perhaps more chilling than Damon’s Tom Ripley simply on his ability to lurk while hot, giving a more disconcerting lead performance than Damon’s obsessive one. The twist that kicks off the film’s third act comes only as a mild surprise, and Oliver’s final reveal (no, not that one) might leave too little to the audience’s imagination. Overall, though, the story works because of how fun it is to watch Oliver and his machinations play out, even when you’re pretty sure you know where it’s all headed.

                In addition to the film’s fun – at times, disturbing – story beats, the cast of characters keep things compelling as well. Archie Madekwe, who continues to have himself a year with his supporting performance here, perfectly plays the spoiled, but broke, American cousin of the Cattons, Farleigh Start. He plays smug and confident with so much smarminess that you can’t help but love to hate him. Even toward the film’s end, when his arc becomes more tragic, he brings just enough ridiculousness that you feel he deserves whatever comes, and he manages to never get shown up by any of the film’s “bigger” names. Jacob Elordi also happens to be putting up career numbers this year, and in Saltburn, his Felix Catton is aloof enough to draw the audience in and jealous enough to make them stay. His charisma and sex-appeal ooze from every scene he’s in, and you almost empathize with Oliver’s blend of obsession and frustration with the rich young socialite. Rosamund Pike, though secondary in the film’s cast of characters, gives a scene-stealing performance as the matriarch, Elspeth Catton. Her deadpan delivery of some truly wild lines brings an element of unexpected humor to many of the film’s tensest situations, and she plays so well off of every character she sits across from – Richard E. Grant’s Sir James, Keoghan’s Oliver, Elordi’s Felix, and even Carey Mulligan’s Pamela – elevating every scene that she’s in because you never know exactly what she’s going to do next, raising the whole cast up to her incredibly talented level. Obviously, though, Barry Keoghan carries the bulk of the film on his back, playing that unnerving little dude just as well as he ever has here as Oliver Quick. In every moment, his decisions, however uncouth and out-there they might be, feel true to the desperation of his character, and the actor feels like the perfect casting for such a uniquely depraved performance. I never doubted his willingness to fully send, and he full sends many MANY times in this film.

                A brilliant cast of characters, some truly gorgeous visuals, and plenty of wild story beats keep Emerald Fennell’s sophomore outing fresh and entertaining even as the themes it explores feel a bit overdone in modern popular media. The big swings taken by the filmmakers certainly won’t land with all audiences, but those looking to see a well-acted film that innovates and takes risks in the modern landscape of film are sure to be rewarded for their watch. Saltburn is currently showing in theaters around the country if you’d like to check it out while it’s still there.

Weekend Watch - Creed III

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is Creed III, the latest film in the follow-up series to the Rocky films, again starring Michael B. Jordan, Tessa Thompson, Wood Harris, and Phylicia Rashad, this time joined by Jonathan Majors, Mila Davis-Kent, and Jose Benavidez. The film follows Adonis Creed as he grapples with retirement, family life, mistakes from his childhood, and the return of an old friend who is hungry for the opportunity he believes he was denied after spending eighteen years in prison. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A, the film has its flaws, but they are small and easily forgiven thanks to a strong story, moving characters, and excellent fights.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes! It looks great, feels great, and is fairly easy to digest even for someone with limited knowledge of the rest of the RCU (Rocky Cinematic Universe).

Why?

                Creed III benefits from a combination of successful endeavors, with great performances from its two leads, an engaging story both in and out of the ring, a banging soundtrack, and visuals that might outshine all previous films in its franchise, highlighting the truly visceral nature of the fights it focuses on. Michael B. Jordan wears two hats for this film, playing the lead and directing (his first film ever) and he carries both burdens admirably, doing far more in both roles than I ever would have given him credit for. The script from Keenan Coogler and Zach Baylin (Oscar nominee for his King Richard screenplay) and the story from Ryan Coogler give the rookie director plenty to work with, and he also benefits from getting to act across from one of the biggest new talents in the game, Jonathan Majors.

                The film’s story picks up at the “end” of Adonis Creed’s career with his very last fight – a bout against “Pretty” Ricky Conlan to solidify Creed as the universal champ on his way out. It then moves to his retirement as the audience gets to watch his interactions with his wife Bianca (Thompson) and their daughter Amara (Davis-Kent) who was born deaf in the previous film. The Creed family dynamic serves as the heart of the film, as Donny struggles to open up to his wife about some of the more troubling aspects of his past and as together they try to help their daughter communicate her emotions and unify that with her desire to fight like her father. The reintroduction of Majors’s “Diamond” Dame Anderson to Creed’s life comes after an eighteen year absence and gives the film its meat and spine – Dame returns from his time in prison hungry and hurting after losing his opportunity to achieve his dream and watching his friend live it instead. The exploration of both men’s pasts and their difficulty voicing and communicating emotion through anything but fighting serves as the start to a deeper conversation on masculinity and emotions that culminates in the film’s concluding act, which I’m not going to spoil here if I can help it.

                The film’s performances carry its story. Tessa Thompson isn’t given a lot to do besides be a record producer and supportive wife, but she does it well with true commitment to the character. Phylicia Rashad gives an admirable, and even emotional, return to her character Mary-Anne Creed, Adonis’s adopted mother and the widow of Apollo Creed, serving as the inspiration for some of the film’s most deeply personal moments. Majors brings plenty of gravitas, swagger, and grit to the character of Dame to hold his own as the film’s antagonist – feeling in many ways like the parallel life of Adonis. The pain of his life and the passion of his future come through in chilling fashion as the character returns to boxing with a fire that threatens so much of what Adonis has built. He’s the most well-established and well-performed villain of probably any film in the entire franchise – Rocky and Creed. This might actually be the best performance I’ve seen from Michael B. Jordan. With plenty of solid co-stars to work with and the opportunity to showcase more than just his anger in his big moments, he shows off a more vulnerable side of the character and of his own persona. The role he plays feels incredibly well-thought-out and authentic to the experience he’s trying to capture. He is given more to do here, and he does more than just clench his teeth and yell about how he’s been waiting his whole life for this, and I was legitimately impressed with his performance.

                Jordan also dazzles in the director’s chair, putting together quite possibly the most entertaining trio of fights in any of the films. Each fight showcases something different for the audience, and each also brings in a new element of filming that makes it feel, as Jordan was quoted to have said, in the “spirit” of an anime showdown. The Conlan fight utilizes slow-motion to emphasize Creed’s physicality and the ways that he understands his opponents, sizing them up in bullet time, so to speak. The Dame-Chavez fight utilizes the hyper-detail of zoom and hi-def cameras to showcase Dame’s less-than-legal style of fighting and the pain he seeks to inflict on his opponents, also highlighting his ability to break down opponents and setting him up as a legitimate contender. The final fight between Adonis and Dame might be the best fight in the entire saga, visually and emotionally engaging from start to finish. I won’t spoil what makes it so good but suffice it to say that this is a beautiful fight.

                A gorgeous trio of fights, great leading performances, and a solid story about family and masculinity help Creed III outshine any minor detractions it might have and give Michael B. Jordan an excellent first entry in his directing repertoire. It's fun, engaging, emotional, well-paced, and a legitimate great time from start to finish. Check this one out in theaters while you can, and if you can’t, be sure to hit it up when it gets to streaming. I’d be surprised if this film didn’t manage to make my personal top 10 films of 2023 by the end of it all.

Weekend Watch - Magic Mike’s Last Dance

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Magic Mike’s Last Dance, the third film in Steven Soderbergh’s trilogy starring Channing Tatum as the male stripper Mike Lane. In this final(?) installment, Tatum is joined by Salma Hayek, Jemelia George, Ayub Khan-Din, and Juliette Motamed as he travels to London to direct a dance show for a wealthy new business partner after the pandemic put an end to his furniture business. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: D+; it’s still watchable, but it misses on so many points that it’s hard to see its merit.

Should you Watch This Film? If you are a fan of Channing Tatum and/or Salma Hayek, there’s enough from both of them in this to warrant giving it a watch, just maybe not on the big screen.

Why?

                Magic Mike’s Last Dance goes away from Soderbergh’s formula for third films of getting the band back together for one final show and instead chooses to focus almost exclusively on the character of Mike and also Salma Hayek’s Max. Former audience favorites Joe Manganiello, Matt Bomer, Adam Rodriguez, and Kevin Nash only appear in a brief video chat cameo that serves as an explanation for why Mike has taken his job in London – to make the money he needs to pay his friends back. Otherwise, all the dancers and other important players are entirely new to the franchise, giving it that odd feeling of a television show that got cancelled on cable but renewed on streaming and lost some of its magic and actors in the transition.

                If the missing favorites were the only issue, I think Last Dance would still be a solid film. Unfortunately, its story also leaves a bit to be desired, following through on a moniker given to Salma Hayek’s Max – the film truly is the “Queen of the First Act”. It starts strong with a fun meet-cute between Mike and Max, followed up with a steamy dance from the two performers and a hasty throwing of Mike into Max’s complicated life in London. The first act keeps you on your toes and hoping for something original and fulfilling that the rest of the film never fully delivers on. The second act is devoted to Mike’s and Max’s constant tweaking of the show they are working on and a fairly tension-less flirtation between the two as they struggle to keep their relationship strictly professional. The final act does bring the story home with plenty of dances in all styles, including an emotional dramatic wet dance from Tatum as a way to express his feelings for Max on stage, but the show ultimately feels a little underwhelming because of the lack of story and abundance of montages that it builds on. It entertains with the performers’ and filmmakers’ technical skills – excellently choreographed and filmed – but never really gives you that oomph that you want from what could have been an emotionally charged romantic third act with a better foundation.

                The great choreography and solid cinematography that we’ve come to expect from the Magic Mike franchise are there in his Last Dance, but it’s definitely missing its lovable side characters and any kind of solid story that could make it a better film. Will it make an audience of middle-aged women happy? Probably so, if my theater from last night is any indication. Is it going to be on anyone’s lists of best films of 2023? I certainly doubt it. It’s currently available in theaters if you want to see Channing Tatum dancing on the big screen; otherwise, I’d suggest waiting until it hits streaming to catch this one.

Weekend Watch - The Fabelmans

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is Steven Spielberg’s latest offering, the semi-autobiographical The Fabelmans about a young Jewish boy who wants to become a filmmaker and his family. The film released on Wednesday and stars Gabriel LaBelle, Michelle Williams, Paul Dano, Judd Hirsch, Seth Rogen, Mateo Zoryan, and Julia Butters. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; Spielberg pays homage to so much greatness in here, but it’s lacking a bit in emotional weight.

Should you Watch This Film? Probably so, this will easily go down as one of the best films of 2022, and there’s plenty in here for all kinds of movie fans. On the big screen it looks great, but I’m sure it’ll be solid at home as well if you really can’t make it.

Why?

                The more I think about The Fabelmans, the more I grow to love it. Spielberg works his semi-autobiography as more of a family study and homage to the power of the camera than as a biopic or an homage to watching films. In that way, it successfully subverted my expectations and left me still thoroughly enjoying myself at the end. Each of its parts on their own is great, and together, they coalesce into something uniquely great as well. From the performances to the references to filmmaking to the little bits of home filmmaking thrown in as well, it all coheres into something worth seeing.

                Paul Dano, Judd Hirsch, Gabriel LaBelle, and Michelle Williams are the acting highlights of The Fabelmans, each doing his or her own part to make the film what it is. Dano’s Burt Fabelman ends up as the sympathetic father figure, condemned to distance from his family by his own technical genius and practical mind. Dano does an admirable job bringing humanity to this character and keeping him redeemable throughout. Judd Hirsch’s ten minutes of screen time as Uncle Boris might be the best part of the entire film. He comes in as this otherworldly figure to mourn the loss of his sister, Sammy’s grandmother, and stays to give Sammy the advice that will shape his future endeavors, noting that his passion for film and his love for his family will tear him apart if he isn’t careful. Relative newcome Gabriel LaBelle plays the teenage version of Sammy in the film and carries the film’s third act, which is more of a high school rom-com than anything else, as we see the character and the actor come into their own by the film’s conclusion. If you’ve been paying any attention to Oscar buzz, you know that Michelle Williams’s performance as Mitzi Fabelman has been a seeming shoe-in for one of the Best Actress nominations, and she more than delivers here. Her portrayal of a mother and woman with passions and flaws and grace and everything else drives the film’s narrative for a good portion, and she bears that weight beautifully.

                In the midst of Spielberg’s family drama, he weaves details of filmmaking like editing machines and camera models and shot framing to remind the audience that this isn’t just a film about his life but also a film about his passion. Through cutaways to family films and self-produced westerns and war movies, Spielberg endears himself and the film to the audience as he so often does, asking them to relate and want more by imparting a bit of his own passion to the audience. If there is to be any gripe with The Fabelmans, it is that, by including these other films and belaboring certain points of discovery and passion, the emotional moments of the film end up feeling very telegraphed and, as such, not overly moving. The rest of the film hits the points it needs to, making the audience love and care for each of the characters and get on board with Spielberg’s love for filmmaking; it’s just the emotional catharsis that never quite finds purchase.

                The Fabelmans is a triumph of a film, showcasing some great acting performances and the director’s passion for filmmaking. Expect to hear its name a lot in the coming months of film awards, as it is deserving of plenty with its star-studded cast and great technical aspects. Its emotional shortcomings are more than overcome with an engrossing story and quality filmmaking across the board.

Weekend Watch - Amsterdam

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, the topic is David O. Russell’s historical whodunnit that had its wide theatrical release yesterday, Amsterdam. The film stars Christian Bale, John David Washington, and Margot Robbie as three friends in the 1930s who are framed for murder and in the process of clearing their names uncover a much larger plot involving the U.S. government (which did really happen). They are supported in the film by a wide cast of characters played by the likes of Robert De Niro, Anya Taylor Joy, Raimi Malek, Taylor Swift, Chris Rock, Zoe Saldana, Mike Myers, Timothy Oliphant, and Michael Shannon. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: D+, somewhere in here, there’s something good, but it’s hard to get at.

Should you Watch This Film? I have no reason to recommend you see this in theaters unless you’re incredibly bored, have money to blow, and have seen 70% of the other films currently showing in theaters. Once it’s streaming, maybe.

Why?

                Amsterdam is a conglomeration of strong and weak pieces that somehow ends up weaker than any of the parts on their own. The film’s strengths – strong acting, good comedy, a relevant message, and decently interesting piece of American history – fail to coalesce with its weaknesses – uneven pacing, odd writing, unnecessary rabbit trails, and a preachiness that comes close to putting Don’t Look Up to shame – and the film ends up being one big disappointment, considering the general skill of director David O. Russell and the many actors involved in the film. The clunkiness of the script is almost overcome by Bale’s and Robbie’s skill at fully committing to whatever role they are asked to play, but even Washington’s cool factor cannot quite mask the awkward stringing-together of deep one liners that is this film’s script. (It often sounds like the Tumblr equivalent of the Star Wars Prequels with the amount of talking past each other that the characters are asked to do here.) The moments of comedy sprinkled through the film are its true highlights, as the actors and script break away from the usual awkwardness and allow the audience to embrace their funnier side. In particular, Anya Taylor Joy shines in a much lighter supporting role than I have yet seen her play, bringing some much-needed comic relief to the scenes she participates in. Ultimately, I think the film’s true failing lies in forgetting who its audience is. The take-home message of the film, while relevant, is very nearly force-fed to its audience in the third act. Though I agree with the statements about the corrupt nature of the moneyed elites and the dangers of using a demagogue to persuade patriotic, but easily manipulated, veterans to undermine the democratic processes of America (or any Western democracy), I feel like most people seeing this film share those sentiments and don’t need such a heavy-handed delivery as the filmmakers bring to this film’s message. Also, people who don’t agree and do see this film probably won’t change their minds because of the use of Nazis, which will cause them to miss the whole point. In the end, Amsterdam is a poorly crafted mix of good actors, decently funny moments, and a relevant message with weak scripting, pacing that doesn’t quite make sense, and a preachiness that only serves to frustrate rather than persuade its audience. Check it out if you want to, but don’t tell them I sent you.