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 Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

                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 Guy Ritchie’s latest action film that opened this week in theaters, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. The film is based on the now declassified British World War II Operation Postmaster and stars Henry Cavill, Alan Ritchson, Alex Pettyfer, Eiza González, Babs Olusanmokun, Cary Elwes, Hero Fiennes Tiffin, Henry Golding, Rory Kinnear, Til Schweiger, Freddie Fox, and Danny Sapani as the various historical characters involved in the story. It has opened, like most of Ritchie’s latest films, to mixed reviews from critics and a generally positive audience reception. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C-; with good action and actors that you can tell are enjoying themselves, you can’t really say that this is a bad movie, just a bit underwhelming.

Should you Watch This Film? If this was a film you were already interested in seeing, I’d go a head and see it in theaters, but if you haven’t heard about it or weren’t intrigued by it, you’re totally fine skipping it.

Why?

                The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare manages to tell a fresh story about a period of history that feels so overdone in cinema and does it with solid action and some fun actors. I think Ritchie’s desire to be true to the historicity of the events, while admirable, weakens the film’s action sensibilities, but it’s not trying to be prestige war picture, so some of the decisions don’t make perfect sense. It’s definitely a film that pleases its target audience (TNT dads) well enough but that doesn’t hit any of its notes perfectly enough to have any kind of staying power, unlike Ritchie’s early films.

                The film has the cast of a bigtime, hard hitting action film with the plot of a more historical film. It contains three major action sequences, which should build on each other, getting more intense with each successive scene, instead peaking in the middle. The opening sequence of the film grips you immediately with Ritchie’s typical blend of humor, action, and tension, well-played by Cavill and Ritchson. The film then cuts to its flashback for exposition, explaining the details of the operation and giving us a decent idea of who each of the characters are before getting back to the next, and best, action sequence in the film – an intense breakout from a Nazi prison camp that really showcases the potential of the film that it unfortunately never really realizes again. The back half of the film is devoted to complicating the plan, introducing new and decently interesting side characters, like Danny Sapani’s Kambili Kalu and the villain Heinrich Luhr, played menacingly enough by Til Schweiger. Eiza González and Babs Olusanmokun certainly have the most to do in this portion of the film, playing the intelligence operatives who consistently have to pass information back to the British to keep Cavill’s March-Phillips and company apprised of the current state of affairs. All of this culminates in what should be a climactic action sequence of taking over a ship, escaping an island, and sabotaging a U-boat refueling depot that underwhelms at almost every turn compared to the rest of the film’s action sequences. It leaves the audience with a sense that they’ve just been watching an Assassin’s Creed film but with guns with the sheer number of faceless stealth kills and lack of climactic showdowns where the heroes’ success is ever in doubt.

                To its credit, the film is decently produced and well-cast. The film’s sound is the standout of the technical department with every scene drawing you in at the right moments through the sound engineers’ creative use of silence, cacophony, and focused sound effects, keeping everything, even the slower parts moving at an acceptable pace. By having all these World War II British soldiers and operatives played by some of the most fun people in the industry at the moment, they keep you invested in the characters even with the film’s minimal character development. González and Olusanmokun do their parts well as the on-the-ground operatives, looking the part and playing well off of each other in the process. Of the “active” group, Pettyfer feels the most out of place, mostly because his character has to be the group’s mastermind and straight man, so he doesn’t have much to do besides stand there looking good and come up with ideas. Hero Fiennes Tiffin is a surprisingly welcome addition to the cast, playing Irishman Henry Hayes as the fun young guy along for the ride. Henry Golding is the requisite unhinged explosives expert, which somehow works for him, as he gets to show off both his action and comedy skills. Cavill, as the team’s leader, feels like the inspiration for James Bond that Ritchie wanted him to be, just coming across as the coolest dude you’ve ever seen in an action movie (until you see what the guy actually looked like). But for me, and most of the audience in my theater, it was Ritchson as the Danish expat Anders Lassen who stole the show at every turn, giving the funniest and most physically impressive performance of the film (this film combined with his recent slew of tweets might finally get me to check out Reacher).

                The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare offers a solid theatrical experience with some decent action sequences and fun characters that just falls short due to an underwhelming climax and a profound lack of character development, leaning harder on its action and espionage than the characters themselves. It’s inoffensive and fun but not as fun as it could be. The story is interesting enough to feel fresh in the context of World War II, and the technique of its telling offers some solid examples of production design. If you wanted to see this film before reading this review, I think you’ll still have a solid time watching it. If you didn’t, you’re not going to miss something that changes your life. It’s a film that does just what it says it’s going to, leaving a lot on the table that could’ve made it better without ever really misstepping into “bad” territory.

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 - Barbenheimer

                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, we’re looking at the cinematic event of the year, the double release of Barbie and Oppenheimer, which have combined to form the 4th-largest American box office weekend in history – and the only one headlined by non-franchise films. Barbie comes from director Greta Gerwig, cowritten by her and Noah Baumbach, starring Margot Robbie as the primary titular character, joined by Issa Rae, Alexandra Shipp, Kate McKinnon, Hari Neff, and many others as the many iterations of the iconic doll and Ryan Gosling as the leading Ken, joined also by Simu Liu, Kingsley Ben-Adir, Ncuti Gatwa, and many others as the other Kens in Barbieland. America Ferrera, Ariana Greenblatt, Will Ferrell, Helen Mirren, and Michael Cera round out the star-studded comedy that has ruled the weekend. Oppenheimer, from writer/director Christopher Nolan, stars Cillian Murphy in the titular role, supported by another star-studded cast, headlined by Robert Downey Jr., Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Alden Ehrenreich, David Krumholtz, Benny Safdie, and Florence Pugh. Both films, and this weekend, are sure to go down in cinematic history, so let’s get into it.

Barbie Letter Grade: A-; this is the type of film that studios should strive to get back to for their blockbusters!

Oppenheimer Letter Grade: A; Nolan delivers a masterclass of a biopic, drawing excellent performances from every actor in the film!

Barbie Review:

                Greta Gerwig’s Barbie is sure to go down in history as a modern classic of satire, production value, and comedic excellence. Every role in the film feels perfectly cast, from Margot Robbie’s complex leading lady to Ryan Gosling’s perfectly himbo-coded Ken to Will Ferrell’s bumbling CEO to America Ferrera’s harried mother/secretary to every supporting Barbie, Ken, and Allan. It’s a fantastic cast that help sell Gerwig’s vision of the mythical Barbieland and the almost real “real world” and allow the film to thrive in its massively important messages of female empowerment and the importance of defining yourself intrinsically rather than extrinsically.

                Barbie’s production design might be some of the best of the year, starting obviously with Barbieland but extending also to the real world, particularly the office-scape of Mattel where we get a particularly fun chase scene and some great contrast to the brightness of Barbieland. The attention to detail that went into the creation of the sets and their intentional artificiality makes this a film that will undoubtedly stand the test of time. The subtle (and not-so-subtle) changes that occur there throughout the movie only add to the film’s sense of itself, drawing the audience into a fantasy land where truths about our own world can be put on full and aggressive display as only satire can do.

                The comedy and story of Barbie, as crafted by Gerwig and Baumbach and then delivered by their stellar cast, hits the right note in just about every scene. The depth of the film’s satirical critique of modern society can only be appreciated when you take a step back and look at the whole thing. This is not a film, as some have argued, that “hates men” or “wants to set the feminist movement back fifty years” or “seeks to villainize all men”. It is a film that uses its childlike premise and perspective to peel away the façade of society’s nuances and lay everything out in its most basic terms. The reverse parallel between Barbieland and our own world highlights the flaws of gender-driven/sexually-motivated systems of power – namely that they are overly reductive and generally ineffective in creating well-running, equitable, informed, and ethically acceptable societies. By showcasing this argument through humor (sometimes self-deprecating, sometimes on-the-nose, sometimes slapstick, sometimes other forms), the audience is invited to embrace gender as a definition of self without it being a cookie-cutter or archetypal label that defines your entire potential for life. Patriarchy is the film’s villain, not because the filmmakers view men as villains, but because they want to reject fully the idea that gender (or implicitly, income, occupation, family status, nationality, race, sexuality, age, etc.) can define anyone’s individual worth or efficacy. You need only look at the story arcs of both Barbie (Robbie) and Ken (Gosling) to see that this is the message being portrayed. The only real issue with the film’s story/comedy/messaging comes in its climactic monologue from America Ferrera’s Gloria in the third act about the struggles of being a woman in a patriarchal society. The monologue itself is excellently done, hearkening to Laura Dern’s Oscar-winning performance in Baumbach’s marriage story in its tone and content, but its issue lies in the fact that the moment feels a bit unearned, given all that we’ve seen of Gloria’s life up to that point in the film (not a whole lot). For a character to make so many sweeping statements speaks to the state of her society, but when so much of the film has taken place away from that society, it feels like there should have been a little bit more lead-in to the moment, however valid it might be.

                Barbie is one of those big studio films that manages to live up to the hype thanks to some excellent performances, great production design, and solid writing that leave audiences with a minimally flawed film and a great time at the theater. Greta Gerwig, Margot Robbie, and Ryan Gosling again have the fullness of their talents on display in this film that is sure to stick around for a while in modern cinematic discourse.

Oppenheimer Review:

                Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer has set a new standard in biopics, delivering a devastating historical narrative in a way that keeps its audience fully engaged and guessing for its entire three-hour runtime. It is a dialogue-driven film full of hearings, interspersed with conversations about politics, metaphysics, and the scientific community that never actually manages to feel as boring as all of that sounds, which is a triumph in and of itself. Nolan manages to deliver a well-paced narrative that only gets you lost a few times and that is one of the most well-acted films of the year, top to bottom.

                At its heart, Oppenheimer wants to tell the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer as honestly as it can, taking the good with the bad and leaving the interpretation up to the audience. It invites you to empathize with the historical figure who is at least partially responsible for one of the biggest atrocities in history, and it accomplishes this goal not by attempting to justify any of the evils that he wrought but by showcasing the human behind it all. Oppenheimer isn’t a hero or a villain or even an antihero; he is a man thrown into some of the muddiest waters in history and asked to swim back to the surface. We get to see the worst parts and best parts of Oppenheimer’s life – both personal and professional – as portrayed in Cillian Murphy’s subtle but gripping performance. The people he wronged along the way and his awareness of that wrongdoing play a key role in making this film as successful as it no doubt will continue to be.

                While I wish that the narrative let you in on a bit more of its side characters’ (RDJ’s Lewis Strauss and Jason Clarke’s Roger Robb for examples) motivations, the overall narrative structure – jumping around between hearings and history – works well in keeping you engaged and presenting its true message, which is only tangentially related to the person of Oppenheimer. The film’s final moments, though not chronologically the last point in the film’s timeline, offer a chilling and gut-wrenching conclusion to Oppenheimer’s work. From the very start of the film, we see Oppenheimer plagued by this fear and guilt and fascination over the work that he conducts, offering an awareness of his own nature and the nature of humans toward self-destruction. His participation in and enthusiasm for the creation of the atomic bomb only serves to reinforce this message, and Nolan makes it all the more clear when we finally see what it is capable of (in gloriously enrapturing cinematography and sound design). Nolan wants his audience to understand that our “othering” of our fellow humans and our own selfish desires for self-preservation over the good of all others are in fact leading us down a path of self-destruction, just as Oppenheimer set himself up for his own demise, the human demand for “defensive weapons” has set us up for our own violent destruction.

                Led by Cillian Murphy’s commanding performance and a plethora of strong supporting performances, Nolan’s Oppenheimer manages to tell the truth about its subject while also offering a deep truth about humanity, marking it as the new gold standard for biographical films. It’s not always the most perfectly paced or explained film, but on the whole, it offers a new perspective and a meaningful message that the world needs in this time.

Weekend Watch - Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio

                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 Netflix Animation’s new Best Animated Feature frontrunner, Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio. The film is a reimagining of the classic tale, set in fascist Italy, done with stop-motion animation, and featuring the voice talents of Ewan McGregor, David Bradley, Gregory Mann, Ron Perlman, Finn Wolfhard, Christoph Waltz, Tilda Swinton, and a few others. The animated musical is now streaming on Netflix; let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; the many reimagined elements of the story keep it fresh, and it has enough emotional weight to engage both children and adults.

Should you Watch This Film? I think so. The animation, del Toro’s direction, and the story itself make it a quality film, worth watching for most audiences (note: there are a few scenes that take on a bit of del Toro’s horror proclivities, so think of this more like Alice in Wonderland than Zootopia in terms of its kid-friendliness).

Why?

                Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio has been easily one of the most anticipated films of the year, particularly for fans of “real cinema” (awards bait films), and it lives up to that hype for the most part. It’s not going to win Best Picture or anything, but the argument against this winning Best Animated Feature is going to be very hard to get across (apparently the Puss in Boots sequel bangs though, so I might have to eat my words in a couple of weeks). The film’s animation style, its reimagined story elements, and the story as a whole go a long way in making the film one of the best of 2022.

                Mark Gustafson’s animation direction is gorgeous to look at, bringing del Toro’s vision to life with rich textures, expressive characters, and scenes chock full of minute details to hold the audience’s attention. His most famous other work is Fantastic Mr. Fox, Wes Anderson’s first stop-motion film, which is also phenomenal and animated with similar excellence. In Pinocchio, Gustafson has created for del Toro a world that is equally fantastic and realistic, reminiscent of the production design of two of the prolific director’s greatest films – The Shape of Water and Pan’s Labyrinth. It feels grounded enough to give the story a sense of realism but also fantastical enough to take the audience into another world just adjacent to ours.

                Gustafson’s animation allows del Toro’s reimagining of the classic tale to really work well. The film contains most of the story beats of the classic book and Disney’s animated adaptation but with a totally different brand of execution. Geppetto makes a boy out of wood who is then brought to life by a fantastical blue creature. The boy then gets involved with a circus, Count Volpe, and a boy named Candlestick before being swallowed by a large sea creature along with his father and then escaping out of its blowhole. Those surface-level similarities are where the parallels end. Del Toro has chosen to set his Pinocchio in fascist Italy, a choice that allows him to craft yet another beautiful, anti-fascist story of dark childlike wonderment. The characters and backstory are a bit more fleshed out than in the Disney version, and the moral of the story is not the basic (and a bit overdone) “Children, obey your parents.” Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio engages with a far deeper theme – what it means to be a “real boy” and how society treats its children. It is a film that is made not just for the children who will watch it and enjoy the whimsical animation and the funny songs and Ewan McGregor’s lighthearted narration but also for the parents who will watch it with their children and be drawn into a story about parenting and the treatment of children and the ills of fascism and the importance of childlike wonderment – I should point out here, that the film is trying to do a lot, and only the most important themes of the film really get fleshed out while the others feel a bit more like hints of spice to keep the audience guessing.

                One of the only other major drawbacks of this new take on the story is that, with its extra story beats, it has extended its runtime to nearly two hours, making it one that might be more difficult to watch with smaller children. I do think that the animation, the songs, and the characters should be enough to keep them engrossed for most of it though. I also think that even people (like myself) without children will be able to find plenty to enjoy here. Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio is an excellent animated feature for anyone who takes the time to watch it, presenting the classic story in a new way that presents an entirely new and arguably more important message for a new generation of movie watchers, though perhaps in an overlong format.

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.