Weekend Watch - The Wild Robot

                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 release from DreamWorks Animation, the film adaptation of Peter Brown’s book The Wild Robot. The film is written and directed by Chris Sanders (Lilo and Stitch and How to Train Your Dragon) and features the voice talents of Lupita Nyong’o, Pedro Pascal, Bill Nighy, Kit Connor, Stephanie Hsu, Matt Berry, Ving Rhames, Mark Hamill, and Catherine O’Hara. It follows the adventure of a helpful robot stranded on an island populated only by animals who view her as a potential predator or prey. The film opened this weekend in the U.S., winning the box office in the process. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A; this is a top 5 film this year for me, and I expect it will be for you as well with its beautiful animation and poignant story.

Should you Watch This Film? Absolutely! This is a film you can watch on your own, with friends, with a significant other, with kids, really with anyone, and you’ll all walk away with something to appreciate.

Why?

                If you’ve seen any trailers for The Wild Robot, you already know that its animation is gorgeous both stylistically and in execution, and that rings true throughout the film, but there have been plenty of animated films in the last decade that are beautifully produced but lack in the story department. This is not one of those films. The voice acting is superb and lends to the story’s emotional weight and poignancy, and the story itself feels just fresh enough to engage even the most cynical moviegoer. While a few minor clichés hold it back from being a perfect A+ film, the story about found family, adaptation, kindness, and even motherhood is certainly one of the most original brought to a mainstream film in the medium in quite some time. It is poignant and important, imparting not just emotional payoffs but actual life lessons that we all need to learn and/or be reminded of in the trying times we live in. This film deserves to be the front-runner for most of the animated awards in the coming award season.

                I came into the theater to watch The Wild Robot expecting quality animation and potentially some emotional beats, but I didn’t necessarily expect to be so wowed by the film’s story and characters. From the jump, we are immersed in this world of wilderness where a robot like the film’s titular protagonist, ROZZUM Unit 7134 or “Roz” (Nyong’o), sticks out like a sore thumb, lacking the ability initially to even communicate with its unsuspecting “customers”. The hilarity and tragedy of Roz’s situation are portrayed excellently as she struggles to find anyone willing to even speak with her after she spends months learning to translate the language of the animals. Eventually her quest brings her an orphaned gosling to adopt and prepare for the coming migration, giving her a new directive – feed the baby goose, teach it to swim, and teach it to fly by the time the rest of the island’s geese undertake their migration ahead of its harsh winters. Roz’s conversations with her less than willing “co-parent” Fink the fox (Pascal) about “programming” and the laws of nature and survival skills mirror concepts that we all are familiar with in our own lives – nature, nurture, social norms, and the competition that society breeds into us. As the film goes on and we see Roz’s gosling Brightbill (Connor) mature into a semi-functional adult goose, those themes become more central alongside the film’s surprisingly profound exploration of motherhood and family, as viewed through the lens of Roz’s role in Brightbill’s life and the lives of the rest of the island’s inhabitants. The film’s final act has a few of its most cliché moments, but it brings everything home in a solid way without feeling the need to put a perfect bow on everything, making it one of the more adventurous mainstream animated films in that area as well.

                The Wild Robot is simply one of the best films of the year so far thanks to its gorgeous animation, skilled voice acting, and poignant story that explores themes relevant to viewers of all ages, engaging not just children, but parents, teens, and single adults as well. It’s a film worth checking out in theaters if possible, especially with its quality animation. Definitely seek it out if it’s playing near you.

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 - Dune: Part Two

                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, an recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Dune: Part 2, the sequel to Denis Villeneuve’s award-winning adaptation of the first part of Frank Herbert’s acclaimed science fiction novel of the same name. After a delay from its original November release date due to last year’s Hollywood strikes, the film finally released widely this weekend (plus some early screenings in various theaters over the past few weeks). It sees the return of Timothée Chalamet as protagonist Paul Atreides, Rebecca Ferguson as Lady Jessica, Zendaya as Chani, Javier Bardem as Stilgar, Josh Brolin as Gurney Halleck, Dave Bautista as Rabban, Charlotte Rampling as Reverend Mother Mohiam, and Stellan Skarsgård as Baron Harkonnen. They are joined in this continuation by Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha, Florence Pugh as Princess Irulan, Christopher Walken as the Emperor, and Léa Seydoux as Lady Margot Fenring, rounding out the all-star cast of this sci-fi epic. With stellar reviews from audiences and generally favorable returns from critics, this looks to be the best film of the year so far. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; while not perfect, it delivers on so many of the promises of the first film in compelling fashion.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes! In the theater, with good speakers, get the full experience. It’s a thrill.

Why?

                Dune: Part 2 is the science fiction epic that we were promised in 2021’s Dune. Its action is bigger, its characters are more fleshed-out even with a wider cast of characters, and it’s just as visually stunning as the first installment. As character motivations become more apparent, so does the film’s true message about the dangers of “chosen ones” and issues with buying into your own mythos and the ills of settler colonialism – all the messages of Herbert’s original 1965 novel, made even more evident by its sequel Dune Messiah. The actors have all elevated their game in one way or another to give audiences a collection of memorable characters. The film’s sound and visuals continue to stun in every sense of the word – sets, locations, special effects, the “props”, costumes, Hans Zimmer’s score – everything working together to immerse the audience in the world of the film. It transports and grips you as its story unfolds in thrilling, tragic, and epic fashion.

                We’ll start with story and execution, since that’s where the film’s biggest issues lie. It’s troubling when a film that’s two hours and forty-six minutes in length feels like it could’ve told its story more effectively with an extra twenty minutes or so. It improves on the story issues of the first film, where if often felt that the audience were merely casual observers of these moments that carried weight for characters to whom we had little connection. This time, a combination of improved character development, legitimately compelling themes, and intense action sequences get the audience fully invested in the story from the jump. What’s missing this time around is the mystery and atemporality of the first film. Gone are Paul’s vague and confusing visions of unknown characters and uncertain futures, replaced by ominous looks at his mother walking past starving bodies, which feels much more heavy-handed in its messaging than the hints of the visions from the first film. It also does feel again as if we are jumping from moment to moment in time with the characters, missing out on some (though not all) of the film’s potential character moments and interactions not tied directly to the plot. Again, this is a loss to the film’s runtime, which does feel as long as it is and would probably not be abbreviated by any extra moments, so we’re left with a stronger story and film that nevertheless still feels like it’s missing something.

                Where obviously the technical aspects and score for this film are excellent, the welcome addition is a cast of actors giving committed, fun, and engaging performances, helping to cover the aforementioned story issues because of how easy it is to invest in their characters. Where the first film had some strong showings from Oscar Isaac and Rebecca Ferguson, you can feel the improvement from everyone in this film, making the most of their increased character development. Zendaya, who was notably absent from most of the first film, immediately makes Chani a rich and dynamic character, more than just a love interest, with some excellent character moments and really solid expressive work. Ferguson takes an even tougher role in this one as Lady Jessica steps into a more prominent position among the Fremen, and it’s again a captivating performance, if a bit more intimidating, that might just be her best yet. Javier Bardem takes on an ironically more comedic role in this one as Stilgar’s dedication to the prophecies of the Lisan al-Gaib come to the fore, giving him the opportunity to deliver lines with such earnestness that the audience actually erupted in laughter because of their ironic timing. While Florence Pugh and Léa Seydoux are satisfyingly welcome additions to the cast, the runaway favorite of the new characters has to be Austin Butler’s Feyd-Rautha. He plays the new villain in a chillingly animated fashion, crafting a memorable performance that’ll end up alongside the likes of Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger, Tom Hardy’s Bane, and Ricardo Montalban’s Khan in the annals of film history. Finally, Timothée Chalamet has come into his own here, establishing his movie star status as he takes Paul through his journey from reluctant hero to willingly participating messiah. It’s a powerful performance, full of excellent vocal, physical, and expressive work that confirms his place as one of the best actors currently working.

                Denis Villeneuve has executed a phenomenal science fiction sequel that stays true to its source material and innovates with compelling characters, stunning production value, and memorable performances that supplement a story that could probably have benefited from a few more scenes but is nevertheless engaging. It’s the best film of the year so far by a fairly wide margin, and the theatrical experience of watching it is glorious – people laughed, they applauded, and some even called it “terrible”. It’ll probably be a while before I recommend a new release this strongly.

Weekend Watch - All of Us Strangers

                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 BAFTA-nominated film from Andrew Haigh that finally got a theatrical release at a theater within feasible driving distance of my house this weekend – All of Us Strangers. The film, adapted from Taichi Yamada’s novel Strangers, stars Andrew Scott, Paul Mescal, Jamie Bell, and Claire Foy in a story about a lonely screenwriter (Scott) whose work on a script based on his own adolescent tragedy leads him back to his childhood home where his deceased parents (Bell and Foy) are seemingly still alive, while he also starts to open himself up to a relationship with a fellow tenant (Mescal) at his supremely vacant apartment complex. The intimate and mind-bending film has already received six BAFTA nominations, a Golden Globe nomination, and a Critics Choice Award nomination. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A; this film meets and exceeds expectations at almost every level.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes, assuming that it’s playing in your area and you’re allowed/able to go see R-rated films.

Why?

                All of Us Strangers does, in fact, live up to the expectations that I have had about it. It delivers a beautifully acted, emotional, engaging, well-shot, mentally stimulating, and intimate look at grief, love, memory, family, and the universal human need for connection and intimacy. On the one hand, it offers a devastating portrayal of loneliness and its consequences when left unchecked, but on the other, it presents the audience with the beautiful nature of the alternative – opening yourself up to being vulnerable with others who might be able to love you (platonically, paternally, romantically, or any other way) and whom you might love in return. Andrew Haigh’s adaptation of Yamada’s novel takes the premise of what I understand to be a fantasy/romance/mystery/horror-lite story (based on the plot synopses I’ve read) whose focus is on letting go of past hurts and loss so that you can connect with your present and twists it into something that lacks a bit of that horror element but that leans hard into the other aspects to tell a story of opening up despite past hurts because of the need that everyone has for connection. Add to that adaptation the four excellent performances from Scott, Mescal, Bell, and Foy, and you’ve got yourself a modern masterpiece of film.

                I think that there exists a problematic and simplistic reading of this film as a purely LGBTQ+ story about how, in fact, being non-cis non-het is inherently isolating to the point of total despair. Adam (Scott) consistently describes himself as lonely, even from childhood before the deaths of his parents, and attributes that loneliness to his sense of feeling different and his fear of being judged and/or ostracized by his peers and his parents for being gay. Likewise, Harry (Mescal) talks about his lack of contact with his family once he told them about his sexuality being an operating factor in his own loneliness and isolation. I think, though, that reading such an interpretation – “the gays are lonely and sad” – into this film is reductive and dismissive of what Haigh (and the cast) are actually trying to accomplish. Their isolation doesn’t stem from their sexuality; it stems from the sense of rejection that they chose to latch onto, that society continues to push everyone toward. This fear of potentially being hurt by others because someone did once hurt you or someone like you seems to permeate modern society and relationships, from children to work environments to families to romantic partnerships to everything in between, and it’s that type of isolation that Haigh seeks to highlight – isolation driven by fear, fearing that you’ll never be loved or be enough but also fearing the possibility of finding out whether or not you are right. It’s so much deeper than a story of gay men being isolated, and it being told from an LGBTQ+ perspective simply lends more truth and power to its universal nature – that I, a straight man, can resonate with and recognize the tension of needing connection but fearing the hurt that comes when you connect with imperfect people as an imperfect person. It’s powerful.

                To top it all off, though, each of the four actors in this film (because it really is just a four-person film with two other credited actors who share one line between the two of them) delivers some of their best work, and when Oscar nominations leave all four of them out on Tuesday, it’s going to be a travesty. Claire Foy as Adam’s mother gets the opportunity to play this maternal figure to a forty-something man while being five to ten years younger than him due to the circumstances of her life and death. It’s a fascinating performance to watch because of how natural it feels, how, no matter the age of your child, you never stop being a mother – with all the highs and lows of motherhood included. Across from her, Jamie Bell plays Adam’s father in what is arguably the most emotionally taxing role of the film as he comes to terms with his treatment of his son while alive, forgive himself, and ask for a chance to be better in one of the most touching scenes from a film in the past year. Paul Mescal provides the perfect sounding board for Adam’s newfound desire for intimacy, offering a caring and interested romantic partner who hides his own pain just as deep down as Adam. It’s a strong supporting performance that comes to a climax in the film’s final sequences when his own pain and isolation finally make themselves known, and the audience gets to see the fullness of his own character development that’s been happening across the film. Finally, without Andrew Scott, this film simply doesn't work. His combination of longing, loneliness, and eventual acceptance come through in every facial expression, movement, and line delivery as he takes the audience along with him on this emotional ride of learning to connect with others and shed his fear of rejection. His is actually one of the best male performances of the year.

                All of Us Strangers gives audiences a glimpse at the power of films to tell universal truths in compelling and emotionally engaging packages thanks to the excellent adaptation and direction of Andrew Haigh and the spot-on performances from all four of the film’s primary players. On the surface this film could be one of the bleakest and most depressing looks at the current state of humanity, but deep down it offers a beautiful alternative if we can only get over ourselves and let others into our hurts and fears and see their own as we want to be seen. If you’ve got this film showing at a theater near you, I can’t stress enough how much you should go check it out. If not, definitely find it when it hits streaming.

Weekend Watch - Killers of the Flower Moon

                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 and review. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Martin Scorsese’s latest crime epic, Killers of the Flower Moon. The film opened across the U.S. this weekend amid huge buzz for the prolific filmmaker’s return to the director’s chair. Based on David Grann’s nonfiction book of the same name, the film documents the Osage Indian murders of the 1920s, focusing on the perpetrators Ernest Burkhart and William Hale and one of the survivors, Mollie Burkhart. It stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest, Robert De Niro as Hale, and Lily Gladstone as Mollie, and also features Jesse Plemons, John Lithgow, Brendan Fraser, Cara Jade Myers, Jenae Collins, Jason Isbell, William Belleau, Louis Cancelmi, and Scott Shepherd in prominent roles. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; if a three hour and twenty-six-minute runtime sounds daunting, this film will not be your cup of tea. The positives outweigh the negatives here overall, but it’s not a film without flaws.

Review:

                Martin Scorsese is back with another weighty true crime story with some of his favorite collaborators and new faces as well. This one takes us to the plains of Oklahoma, the land of the Osage in the 1920s, where vast oil reserves made the Native Americans one of the wealthiest people groups in the world before the wealth drew American settlers looking to use intermarriage and “accidental” deaths to steal that wealth away. It’s a story that begs to be told, and Scorsese feels like one of the better choices to tell it, honoring the heritage and culture of the Osage even as he focuses the spotlight on the white perpetrators. The three central performances carry the film’s hefty runtime, not really lightening the load but making it a more acceptable slog. Is the film 20 to 40 minutes longer than it could be? Probably, but I think most of the length comes from an intentionally plodding pace rather than an excess of unnecessary story moments. It would feel a disservice to cut much of the story, but a more typical Scorsese pace could have shortened things a bit and made it more easily marketable to a wider audience.

                Your take on the latest Scorsese film will most likely come down to how willing you are to bask in the corruption and deceit of William Hale and his cronies because Scorsese really wants you to take it all in – to witness just how far American greed is willing to go and just how many people it’ll walk over to make a profit. If you come in knowing much about the story, the slow pace could frustrate rather than engulf and leave you wondering why you agreed to sit for this long watching a single film whose outcome you already knew. If you don’t know much, there’s enough from moment to moment that keeps even the slow moments engaging as the web becomes more and more complex. I’m not sure how effective putting DiCaprio’s Ernest Burkhart as the film’s focus is for the goal of the film, since he’s almost too much of a yes-man to feel like the scathing picture of an American capitalist that Scorsese loves to portray as his leading hero/villains. De Niro’s Hale as the lead could have been a truly chilling look at American greed, and Gladstone’s Mollie could have provided more of that victimized minority perspective were she serving as the lead instead. As it stands, the story has impact because of how tragic and seemingly thoughtless most of the deaths were, but it doesn’t go a long way in offering any modern condemnation of continuing American exploitations in the name of “progress” and capitalism.

                As I mentioned above, the three leads drive the film, even if their characters don’t necessarily receive the proper amount of screentime, respectively. DiCaprio is on his A-game as the leading man, blending the affability of Rick Dalton with the sliminess of Calvin Candy and the greed of Jordan Belfort to produce the bumbling henchman that is this film’s leading man. I don’t know that I’d go so far as to put it as the actor’s best performance, but in combining his three best performances, the actor unlocks something unforgettably gray and discomforting in this film. Gladstone turns in a career-making performance as Mollie, offering the audience a quiet but pervasive look into the viewpoint of the victims of these crimes. It’s a slow-developing performance that percolates as the plot of the film does, hitting its peak in the third act when she finally knows as much as the audience does and delivers the deathblow to Ernest’s illusions of coming back from everything that he has participated in with no lasting repercussions. It is De Niro’s performance, though, that truly dominates the film. His portrayal of William Hale will go down with Ledger’s Joker, Bardem’s Anton Chigurh, DiCaprio’s Calvin Candy, and Waltz’s Hans Landa as one of the best villains of the 21st century. He’s a character that’s so chilling because he really believes that his actions are justified and that his “good” deeds excuse any evils and victimization that result from his machinations.

                With captivating performances from its three leads and a story that absolutely has to be told, Killers of the Flower Moon outshines an excessive runtime and a focus on the wrong character to insert itself into the upper echelons of films released this year. It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, especially being as long as it is, but Scorsese’s filmmaking certainly hasn’t fallen off with this latest outing.

Weekend Watch - A Haunting in Venice

                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 and review. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Kenneth Branagh’s latest Hercule Poirot film – A Haunting in Venice. This one finds Branagh again in the role of the Belgian sleuth, joined again by a star-studded cast of victims and suspects, including Michelle Yeoh, Jamie Dornan, Tina Fey, Riccardo Scamarcio, and Kelly Reilly. The film takes on a slightly different tone than Branagh’s other two Poirot films, leaning harder into the horror elements of its subject matter, loosely adapting Agatha Christie’s Hallowe’en Party. It opened this weekend in theaters. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C+, the horror elements are a welcome addition to Branagh’s fairly nondescript detective film series, but minimal character development and a fairly predictable mystery keep the film in a middling tier of films.

Review:

                A Haunting in Venice improves upon the Poirot formula with some new elements of supernatural horror and the use of far less CGI in its cinematography and set design to give us a decently passable entry in the canon of mystery films – superior in almost every way to its predecessor Death on the Nile and arguably better than Branagh’s Murder on the Orient Express as well. The new ensemble of characters, while not overly fleshed out or dynamic, provide some solid performances with more to do than the cast of Branagh’s previous two entries in this current Poirot series, which then (surprisingly) gives Branagh less to do, again improving upon the flaws of the first two films, saving us from an excess of Branagh’s wild attempt at a Belgian accent. The story and mystery are still fairly simple and easy to follow and unravel, leaving this film stranded somewhere in the middle in terms of its watchability.

                Venice finds our detective living in retirement in the titular city, enjoying the sights and eating pastries on his balcony while a bodyguard – Riccardo Scamarcio’s Vitale Portfoglio – keeps supplicants at bay. It is only the arrival of his friend, mystery author Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey), with an offer of debunking a medium at a séance followed by a murder at said séance that can bring Poirot back into the game. The mystery unfolds as the other Poirot films have, with a group of mostly familiar celebrity faces trapped in a single location while the detective endeavors to discover which of them committed the crime. The actual mystery is two-pronged, with the purported murderer most likely also responsible for a past murder in the same location, but it’s not the mystery that holds the audience’s attention for the majority of the film, as the perpetrator(s) quickly become apparent to most viewers. The true hook for the story (and the film) comes in the form of the supernatural elements in the second act. While the séance is quickly debunked, other seemingly supernatural occurrences continue throughout the film’s run, plaguing Poirot specifically with haunting children’s songs, phantom appearances in mirrors, and frightening images abounding in the film’s second forty minutes or so. While it’s not on the level of a James Wan film, for a PG-13 mystery horror, the suspense, atmosphere, and jump scares do a solid job of achieving that element of horror lite needed to season the mystery well.

                One thing that Branagh has done well with his Poirot films is casting his ensembles of characters, and Venice continues in that tradition. While the characters are little more than archetypes, each of the actors portrays their archetype well. Branagh’s Poirot himself has arguably less to do in this film than in either of the other two entries, and that allows the actor to lean into the more endearing parts of the character without coming across as overtly self-serving, as he has in the past. Fey brings some levity and intensity to her role as the washed-up mystery novelist looking to revitalize her career with a new Poirot-inspired story. Yeoh seems like she gets to have the most fun as the nebulous medium Mrs. Reynolds, playing the woman with a connection to the other side with just the right blend of airiness and insanity. Dornan’s veteran physician suffering from PTSD offers a reminder of the actor’s versatility and ability to exhibit some level of depth and emotionality when given the opportunity. Finally, Kelly Reilly brings her A-game to the eternally mournful, not fully adjusted diva and host Rowena Drake, playing tragically bereaved mother and potential femme fatale with aplomb, rounding out the leading cast in satisfactory fashion.

                A Haunting in Venice improves upon Kenneth Branagh’s Poirot formula in almost every facet with well-cast characters, more believable visuals, and elements of horror that make the film more interesting, but at the end of the day, the predictable mystery, lack of character development, and familiar tropes leave it as a basic mystery, just fine, but not groundbreaking. It’s fun to see Branagh getting better at making his Poirot mysteries, so if he does adapt another, maybe it’ll be the one that finally hits the nail right on the head.

Weekend Watch - Where the Crawdads Sing

                Welcome back to the new and improved Weekend Watch, where each week, you vote on the blog’s Instagram for what we should watch next weekend, and then I watch it and give a little review and recommendation about it. This week’s winner was the new theatrical release, Where the Crawdads Sing, based on the best-selling novel by Delia Owens. It features Daisy Edgar-Jones as the protagonist Kya Clark, Taylor John Smith and Harris Dickinson as her two love interests (Tate and Chase), and David Strathairn as her elderly lawyer, Tom Milton.

Letter Grade: C-, it definitely doesn’t wow, but it tells an interesting enough story

Should you Watch This Film? Fans of the book should enjoy this one well enough, but visually, it doesn’t bring enough to the table to necessitate a theatrical viewing.

Why?

                Where the Crawdads Sing suffers from similar issues to many adaptations of detailed books into films. It tells the story well, but the story was only part of what made the book so well-liked. The character development is cast to the wayside in favor of hitting story points, but because of runtime requirements, the story points often feel disjointed from one another, making it a difficult film to categorize. This film has notes of a romantic drama, a woman-empowerment film, and a courtroom drama, but not quite enough of any individually to get it into those categories. It has a love triangle (of sorts) between three attractive actors, in which one guy is clearly better for the girl than the other is, but she has to discover that for herself. The only problem is that for extended stretches of the film, the romance plot simply disappears, taking you out of that genre’s mindset. The film features a strong female protagonist doing great things all on her own like fending for herself after being abandoned by her family, writing a plethora of books about local wildlife that end up published by academic publishers, and fighting off an attempted rapist all on her own. At the same time, she only learns of the publishers from one of the men in her life and her court case rests on the skill of her male lawyer, as she refuses to take the stand in her own defense. These are two clear moments of potential female empowerment that lose some of their impact because of the men involved, which is true to the book, but the book has plenty of other aspects that enforce the female empowerment piece, and maybe the story’s ending redeems those points to a lesser extent as well. Finally, as a courtroom drama, we get very little, which was also the case in the book, as the trial featured only at the story’s conclusion. In the film adaptation, the court case is sprinkled in throughout the film between flashbacks to other parts of the story. For the most part, the courtroom and related scenes serve mainly as a vehicle for David Strathairn to do some acting and very little else. Not much is revealed through those scenes, and they feel more like an afterthought to everything else going on in the film because of Kya’s reluctance to speak. Despite these tonal disparities, the story is compelling, and the acting is relatively solid (minus some occasional accent inconsistencies). I’d say this is certainly a film worth watching at some point, especially if you’ve read the book or you are at all curious about the book but haven’t had time to sit down and read it yet. Where the Crawdads Sing is a faithful, if lacking, adaptation of Delia Owens’s novel, featuring all the story points of the beloved book without the strong character and relationship development that tied it all together. It feels like something that could have been even better, had it gone the route of miniseries like so many other stories have in recent years.