Ready Player One (2018)

Nostalgia: a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time.

The word is used pejoratively quite a bit in response to Ernest Cline's novel and the film based on it. I can't speak to the novel as I haven't read it. But the film, challenges the idea that nostalgia is a weakness and makes it very much a strength. The idea that searching for missed happiness is somehow a less than noble pursuit is nonsensical. Ready Player One, the film, is a love letter to the idea of finding a misplaced contentment, a place of joy, and the things that speak joy to us. 

In the story of Ready Player One we are spoken to in a language of images, or ideas. If one just sees a series of "easter eggs" one is missing the point. The film uses these references as a means of communicating feelings, communicating tones, emotions. Because for fanfolks these touchstones of our lives are more than just trinkets. They are hallmarks of who we are, how we want to be, what we wish for. Ready Player One, the film, gets this. It tells a story in a way that is different from how most films tell stories, by evoking the pathos that these references can impart. 

But it isn't just the "easter eggs" littered throughout the film. It is the very nature of how Ready Player One is structured, how it was filmed, the way the characters come together. The film is made to convey a film making of a different time, a specific style of communication.  As I watched Ready Player One it became clear to me that no director could have made this film but Steven Spielberg. Sure another film maker could have made a Ready Player One movie. But only Spielberg could have made this movie. 

Spielberg has made some of my favorite films. He has made plenty of films which mean very little to me as well. But he also helped create a very specific language of film making, a language which was such a part of the films which turned me into a cinemaphile. Ready Player One is his return to that form. He has made some films recently which I respect (eg. Bridge of Spies) and others I could take or leave (ie. Lincoln) but there is a style of film he perfected which was a big part of why I love movies. Watching Ready Player One brought that into full focus for me. I was 10 again watching E.T. I was 12 and my dad was taking me to see Temple of Doom. I was a freshman in college going to a midnight show of Jurassic Park on opening night. I was having my mind blown, losing myself in the magic of movies. 

Ready Player One isn't just about remembering the past or evoking those feelings of our youth although I'll defend that as reason enough to enjoy this magical film. It is also about the future. Ready Player One is an indictment of the monitization of the public space, about resisting corporate power, about where and how we can connect. It is about how our identities shift and our control of who we are. It speaks directly to the issues we're struggling with today. 

Ready Player One is crafted of a specific aesthetic and the use of that is purposeful, it is deliberate. It is taking the past to get us to look at our future. And while doing all that it tells a great story, a fun adventure. Just like the films it is referencing. I truly enjoyed every moment of Ready Player One. And do I want to watch The Shining again? The Iron Giant? Back to the Future? Fuck yeah I do.

Ready Player One
Starring: Tye Sheridan, Olivia Cooke, Lena Waithe, Ben Mendelsohn, Mark Rylanch, Simon Pegg
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writers: Zac Penn, Ernest Cline

I Kill Giants (2018)

The best "children's stories" are usually about something more than what they appear. For example Where the Wild Things Are is about children dealing with anger and emotions beyond their control. A Monster Calls is about children dealing with loss. Similarly, I Kill Giants is about a young woman struggling with her emotions around loss, around alienation, and powerlessness.

Director Anders Walter has made a beautiful film which taps into childhood pain and loss in a powerful way. Writer Joe Kelly has adapted his story into a screenplay which is smart and simple, tapping into truly powerful truths. His cast, lead by the strong Madison Wolfe, brings this story to life so convincingly. Barbara's journey facing her "giants" is a truly lovely and inspiring story.

But perhaps the best part of I Kill Giants is the way its story connects to the real life pain of its audience. "You mean I can't save her?" There are battles which can't be "won" at least not how they are won in stories and in the movies. I Kill Giants' story brings us to a truly honest place, a place which is painful yet inspiring. And Barbara is a true hero.

I Kill Giants
Starring: Madison Wolfe, Zoe Saldana, Imogen Poots, Jennifer Ehle
Director: Anders Walter
Writer: Joe Kelly

Sherlock Gnomes (2018)

Gnomeo and Juliet was a far better movie than it should have been. While nothing remarkable, the movie was far more charming and entertaining than the silly premise and clunky animation quality would suggest. The mix of Elton John showmanship and some clever plotting turned out a rather pleasant movie. Unfortunately any good will that film generated is pretty much eaten up by this cheap sequel which shows little to no originality.

Like many of these films, little kids may enjoy it anyway. But it is one of those films that will be tedious for their parents. The whole garden gnome shtick wears out completely and it feels like they just recycle the same Elton songs they used in the first film. Is it even an interesting Sherlock Holmes parody? Not really. It's just every cliche you can think of about Holmes thrown together.

This one is clearly a pass. There are honestly so many great films you can take your kids to that you have to ask yourself, sure my kids may not hate this but if they could truly enjoy something better then why bother with this one.

Sherlock Gnomes
Starring: Emily Blunt, James McAvoy, Johnny Depp, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mary J. Blige, Michael Caine, Maggie Smith
Director: John Stevenson
Writer: Ben Zazove

The Death of Stalin (2018)

The mind behind Veep and In the Loop has applied his sharp tongue to Soviet Russia in this hilarious and irreverent satire with a hilarious cast. Following the events (some real, some made up) leading up to and following the death of the Russian dictator, The Death of Stalin explores how incompetence and corruption can run a nation.

The Death of Stalin goes past the edge of absurd in a delightful way. His cast, which includes Jeffrey Tambour, Jason Isaacs, Simon Russel Beale, Michael Palin, and Steve Buscemi as Khrushchev, is clearly having a great time and allows us as the audience to as well.

The tricky bit of this film is how to find humour out of the horrors of the Stalinist regime. The film goes right for it, making jokes and exploiting the humour of the deaths of millions. But in the same way we found ourselves laughing at horrible things in his work in Veep, we find it here.

And perhaps the point is that we have to laugh or it will kills us. British writer/director Armando Iannucci's point is to tear it all down with humour. This sort of dark comedy is difficult for many but he has found a niche that he is good at and pulls it off.

The Death of Stalin
Starring: Steve Buscemi, Jeffrey Tambour, Jason Isaacs, Simon Russel Beale, Michael Palin, Paddy Considine, Andrea Riseborough, Rupert Friend
Writer/Director: Armando Iannucci (et. al screenplay)

Unsane (2018)

There was a time when people thought Steven Soderbergh was a defining film making voice. Is he trying to prove them wrong lately? Logan Lucky, Side Effects, Haywire, Contagion, The Informant!, I could go on and on. How many of these films were ever really entertaining? Certainly none of them memorable. Honestly how many of them do you remember? I have always felt he was overrated. His big films; Sex, Lies and Videotape, Out of Sight, Magic Mike; are fine but all overrated in my opinion. Even the one to punch of Erin Brockovich and Traffic were not high on my list. Sure he's not to my taste, but looking back at his resume I would challenge folks to be honest about how many of these films hold up after all.

And now he is back as his un-retirement continues with a film which almost got me, but left me feeling so frustrated. Like his experiment Bubble (which popped btw) Unsane has a gimmick. It was all shot on an iphone. Well this has been done and done much better (Tangerine) so it's not really a revolution. And even if it was it would need a story that made it a worthwhile experiment. Unsane didn't have that story for me.

I kept waiting for Unsane to be something more than just a run of the mill standard thriller. Woman gets locked up against her will in an institution and she begins to question what's real and what's not. Except we never do. The film is so straightforward, spoon-feeding us all the way along there is a never a question of what is real and what is not. The film ends up being just another woman-in-peril for our entertainment stories which hits each expected beat. Boring. Soderbergh just strings one thriller cliche after another (why does the heroine keep running into the danger instead of away from it as in every cliched thriller?) and it all feels so much like we've seen it before.

But here is what makes it so damn frustrating. The idea of gaslighting is a fascinating one, one that really could have been explored with this plot, with this fact pattern. I wanted to see a film which played with the way one's perceptions can be manipulated, the ways we can question our own credibility. But the film never even tries to get into any of that. Going back to my question, perhaps the film could have found a way to explore why she kept making things worse for herself, how the forces manipulating her were creating an untenable situation. But it doesn't. It abandons her to a tired plot that doesn't know how to finish in a way that is interesting. As it reaches its paint by numbers climax we are given no real sense of the pain of her journey. It just wraps up all quite conveniently, far too conveniently.

And it ends with a truly cheap maneuver, which undercuts her survival entirely, a survival we never get to feel authentically. Never did I feel this was Sawyer's story. It felt like she was a prop for us to enjoy.

Yes, I know I am simply not a fan of Soderbergh's work and perhaps there are those who do but I don't get it. I would love to understand why he gets the credit he does for making what are often so typically uninteresting films.

Unsane
Starring: Claire Foy, Jay Pharoah, Joshua Leonard, Juno Temple, Amy Irving
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Writers: Jonathan Bernstein, James Greer

Pacific Rim Uprising (2018)

2013's Pacific Rim from Academy Award winning director Guillermo Del Toro was a straight up love fest of B-movie mania. Del Toro balanced the esthetics of the Kaiju film genre in all its absurdity, with the demands of a studio blockbuster franchise film to make a fun, if rather lightweight, adventure. The film took the desire to see giant robots fight gargantuan monsters and gave it a respectable home, a credible enough story, and a raging good time. Del Toro didn't shy away from the B-movie roots, embracing them proudly which was good news for fans of the genre.

This sequel may feel a bit derivative, but it proudly holds on to its B-movie credentials, embracing it all even more wholeheartedly. Uprising is pure, unadulterated genre B-movie mayhem which lets go of the restraints of respectability to just tell the rather silly yet damn fun story it wants to tell. It's lack of need to justify itself as a major tent-pole lets it tell the genre story it wants to tell. And that makes it, in some ways, more fun than the original.

At the heart of this is John Boyega getting to show us what an amazing screen presence he is. Yes he captivated us in Star Wars, but here is full on Attack the Block magical, oozing charm, charisma, and heroics. I could watch him do almost anything.

There is a thin line between the inane Hollywood eye candy and the deliberately campy genre fun that is Pacific Rim. This isn't a situation of so-bad-it's-good kind of film. It's more that it is just the embracing of a style which is to be appreciated differently. Spectacular, straightforward, and in the end fun, Pacific Rim Uprising is delightful candy to enjoy between more respectable cinema.

Pacific Rim Uprising
Starring: John Boyega, Cailee Spaeny, Scott Eastwood, Jing Tian, Adria Arjona, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Burn Gorman
Director: Steven S. DeKnight
Writers: Emily Carmichael, Kira Snider, T.S. Nolan, Steven S. DeKnight

The Party (2018)

Writer/director Sally Potter has crafted a wickedly tight commentary on post-modern politics and relationships in this ensemble dramedy which in its real time concise plotting feels like a filmed stage play. Her cast are all heavy hitters and her script is delightfully morose. It all comes together in a quick, enjoyable slap in the face.

The story combines the opportunity to discuss and debate issues while the characters dance around their passions and faults in a very entertaining manner. It's sharp and clever while always remaining entertaining. Potter deftly juggles it all and delivers a fun, if short film, which manages to be a jagged little pill at the same time. Sometimes she has her characters verbalize their inner thoughts a bit to obviously, but here it truly feels like it works, partially due to Potter's writing and partly due to the cast's expert performances.

While the entire cast is remarkable one can't help but single out Patricia Clarkson whose character is certainly the most engaging and who delivers a jewel in the crown of her wonderful career in this piece. Seeing good actors do some of their best work is always a treat. The whole cast gets to put their best feet forward but Clarkson especially shines.

This is the sort of party you know you should leave but its just too delicious to.

The Party
Starring: Patricia Clarkson, Kristen Scott Thomas, Timothy Spall, Cherry Jones, Cillian Murphy, Emily Mortimer, Bruno Ganz
Writer/Director: Sally Potter

BPM (Beats per Minute) (2017)

Take a little bit of The Normal Heart and add a dash of Longtime Companion and you get the strikingly powerful BMP, the winner of Cesar Best Picture and the Cannes Grand Prix. BPM starts out as a documentary style drama chronicling the early 90s French branch of Act Up and like The Normal Heart, it quite effectively details the struggle within struggles to find a cohesive approach, message, comradarie. But as the film goes on it becomes a personal love story between two men, one sick and dying and another trying to hold on to what they have, very reminiscent of Longtime Companion. BMP does both well and transitions seamlessly between them.

BPM's strength early on is the way it captures that conflict often present in many grassroots movements between its members' varying degrees of passion as well as differing ideals and divergent strategies. Anyone involved in social justice movements will recognize these struggles and relate to them. BPM is powerfully accurate in this regard while not trivializing the issues or making it feel melodramatic. The demonstrations of Act Up are powerful in their approach and dramatized here one can't help but get caught up in the adrenaline as well as the fear. BPM shows us the risks these folks are taking and the way people respond to putting themselves on the line like that.

But the film becomes even more engrossing as it focuses on the love story between characters played by Nahuel Perez Biscayart and Arnaud Valois. They're finding each other is portrayed not in the filmatic tradition of making it something miraculous. Instead the film allows them to just naturally come together and gradually intertwine their lives into something beautiful in the face of disease and death. This very realistic approach by film maker Robin Campillo, a member of Act Up himself in the 90s, makes it all the more powerful. It feels lived in. Honest.

What BMP doesn't feel is safe. Some films dealing with these volatile issues from a long time ago, have that security of distance in how they are speaking to something from the past. BPM feels vibrantly relevant and speaks to a group of heroes who responded in their moment in their time an are perhaps calling us to live into that today.

BMP (Beats par Minute)
Starring: Nahuel Perez Biscayart, Arnaud Valois, Adele Haenel
Director: Robin Campillo
Writers: Philippe Mangeot, Robin Campillo

Love, Simon (2018)

When E.M. Forster wrote his gay love story Maurice, he insisted it have a happy ending. “A happy ending was imperative. I shouldn't have bothered to write otherwise. I was determined that in fiction anyway two men should fall in love and remain in it for the ever and ever that fiction allows.” Happy endings have often been denied gay love stories. Growing up I saw tragic ending after tragic ending in love stories between two men. Even today the highly acclaimed gay stories (Brokeback Mountain, Call Me By Your Name) often end in loss. The homosexual love story often is rife with tragedy in the heterosexist world we live in so this makes sense. So there is something remarkably subversive about a happy ending in a gay love story. Forster was right. A happy ending is imperative.

Love, Simon is modeled after the traditional teen romantic comedies we've seen a thousand times in the heterosexual context. Part of what makes Love, Simon so remarkable is the way it takes that popular model and upends it to make it about young queer men (queer men of colour mostly too). This story, closely adapted from the charmingly accessible young adult novel, is as funny, as engaging, as irresistible as the mainstream heterosexual romcoms we are so familiar with. In fact, in many ways it surpasses those by the very nature of queering those stories, it introduces us to new ideas, new wrinkles, things we don't get out of regular romantic comedies.

Director Craig Berlanti does a wonderful job of adapting the novel and telling this charming story. He makes it easily relateable to all. Love, Simon works so well because of how well Berlanti makes his story accessible. It's funny. It's emotional. Yes, you'll laugh, you'll cry, and come out smiling. Simon is the idealized coming out tale. But it's marvelous in that idealization. It is the dream most queer people share about being a part of their families, communities, and finding that romantic connection that movies tell us we all are entitled to. Only in this film the boy meets boy and boy gets boy while their friends and family cheer them on.

Simon's parents say the things parents should say. Simon's friends act the way friends should act. There is justice when Simon is wronged. Simon lives in a world where his identity is affirmed. It may still not be like that for all gay kids growing up, but it is more and more. And Love, Simon puts it out there for all to see. It is a big glowing sign saying gay boys get to feel romance too, get to be loved by their parents, get to be themselves.

Love, Simon is glorious in its simple, lovely affirmation of teen romance, told from the point of view of those who don't often get to see their love stories told. Two men should fall in love and remain in it for the ever and ever that fiction allows.

Love, Simon
Starring: Nick Robinson, Katherine Langford, Keiynan Lonsdale, Alexandra Shipp, Jorge Lendeborg Jr., Logan Miller, Jennifer Garner, Josh Duhamel, Tony Hale, Natasha Rothwell
Director: Greg Berlanti
Writers: Isaac Aptaker, Elizabeth Berger

The Young Karl Marx (2017)

Director Raoul Peck's tale of the rise of the author of the Communist Manifesto is a mixed bag. It isn't quite a biopic, focusing mostly on conversations he has with other thinkers in his movement while spending little time getting to know him as a man. It isn't quite an origin story, his Marx is already "mostly" fully formed in his ideas and rhetoric without getting into how he came to his ideas. It isn't quite a portrait of an artist as a young man, as Peck focuses more on ideas than on a story.

But I think what didn't work for me most about The Young Karl Marx is how Peck never finds a passion to latch on to. He takes the approach to historical drama where he just goes from event to event. First this happens. Then this happens. Then this happens. The narrative never comes alive, never feels like a story. It feels more like a summary.

Peck seems most interested in just letting his Marx talk, talk to his detractors, talk to his comrades, talk about his ideas. Set up, as it is, as a realistic life story this leads to just a lot of talk with very little to entertain. He throws in a chase scene at one point and the ending has a very inspired tone as the Manifesto is read aloud, but as a movie it's hard to keep focused as he plods through one conversation to the next.

August Diehl is charismatic as Marx, showing a powerful screen presence. But Peck doesn't ever exploit this effectively (how appropriate). The Young Karl Marx feels like a history lesson. It doesn't engender real passion in its subject. As a follow up to the remarkably inspiring I Am Not Your Negro, The Young Karl Marx feels stunted, feels a bit tedious.

The ending's attempt to sweep us up in sentiment feels out of place with the rather sterile rest of the film, and almost too little too late.

The Young Karl Marx
Starring: August Diehl, Vicky Krieps, Stefan Konarske
Director: Raoul Peck
Writers: Pascal Bonitzer, Raoul Peck

Opinion: Red Pill Blue Pill why we love/hate The Greatest Showman The Last Jedi

In the Holiday season of 2017 two films were released which both became big hits but were polarizing to most audiences. A musical telling of the life of P.T. Barnum, The Greatest Showman, got mostly bad reviews but made huge profits at the box office and had fans singing its praises. Star Wars sequel The Last Jedi was loved by critics but divided fans, many of whom were unhappy with the direction the series took. However the film still became the highest grossing film of the year but didn’t reach the heights of some other Star Wars films.

Seeing these two films got me thinking about the sorts of issues within the films which people were responding to. I listened to those critical of each as well as those who loved them. There seemed to be little middle area in the appreciation of these films. Most either loved or hated the films with few feeling moderately. There also appeared to be some correlation in how many who loved one disliked the other. Of coarse there are always those who didn’t like either, didn’t care to see either, loved both, hated both or were ambivalent towards them. Outliers always exist. However there was undeniably a strong reaction to both films and I began to see patterns.

To use another film reference, the ideas put forth in both films reminded me of the red pill/blue pill conundrum from The Matrix.  The idea is you take one pill and you get to be lied to, you get comfortable lies which make you feel secure and content. You get to ignore the pain and difficulties of the world and feel uplifted. It’s all a sham but you feel great about it. You take the other pill and you get woken up. You face the harsh truths and struggle with the reality of that. It’s honest but painful. It’s uncomfortable.

In so many ways The Greatest Showman and The Last Jedi are those pills. Do we want the uplifting lie or do we want our fantasy deconstructed with a strong dose of reality?

The Greatest Showman is a lie. Literally. The story of P.T. Barnum is not the fairytale told in that movie. The man was a series of contradictions, not all very pleasant. But Hugh Jackman is a dream, the kind of man we all want to turn to and be loved by. So often movie biopics are romanticized versions of their subjects. This is no crime and is very common. But the actual man in this case is so problematic that his being the hero of a feel good musical is a questionable choice at best if not completely irresponsible and disrespectful to the legacy of the people affected by him.

But the film is more than just the story of one man, it is in its heart the story of and an argument for the “American Dream.” The idea of a (probably white, able-bodied straight) man struggling against adversity, making a success of himself through his individual sheer will, overcoming the elites who want to keep him down in his place, is seductive. It’s Ayn Rand. It’s a story told to us again and again and again to keep us believing it’s possible so we keep striving against all odds. The film doesn’t talk about the exploitation required to make that dream happen. To open that door is offensive. To acknowledge that struggle is sacrilege. Those wanting to believe in that dream need it to be okay, to be morally sound. They need to think it’s noble.  And introducing the fact that it might actually hurt people is too much to bear. So the morally problematic elements of that dream get swept under the rug so people can be okay with what they are doing and who they are.

That’s why there is such an unnecessary and egregious “scorned woman” subplot that doesn’t belong. It has a role in shaping how we see him. He is a noble man we have to admire so he can’t actually have an affair, but there needs to be the illusion of one. That way when he is being torn down, we can side with him against his accusers cause we know he is really a good guy, really. In this dream, philanderers are not good men and so he can’t be one. It needs to be presented to us as a lie so that we can feel good about dismissing the attacks on his character and feel good about buying into the story he is selling.

Then there is his white saviour complex.  Again, this is an essential piece of the American Dream. A nation built of stealing land requires a justification for the placement of white men over everyone else. Here it is built up in how kind he is to all those freaks around him. He gives them a chance. On the one hand we are to believe that he is a success of his own free will but non-white men need his graceful offering of a hand up. It’s that hand up that means they will never be his equals. They can’t do it for themselves but he can.  It will always hang over them that this is not their story, but his, not their success but his. Aren’t they lucky to be along for the ride? Shouldn’t they be grateful? And if they don’t show that gratitude properly isn’t there something wrong with them?

That’s why, at the centre of a story, which is supposedly empowering, there is the white man who does it all. He is the one who gets the glory. We all need to be celebrating him. When this circles back to the truth about who P.T. Barnum really was and the things he did, this becomes the lie that is the most dangerous. That the exploiter becomes the hero is a lie that has fuelled the American Dream for so long. P.T. Barnum was a human being and like all of us, complicated. I’m not saying he was an evil figure. But so much of his success is built of the backs of others. To then tell a story which make him their saviour is rather disgraceful. It is a disgraceful lie.

But it’s lovely isn’t it? Sing along with This is Me and how can you not feel inspired? It’s happy lyrics are so generically applicable to everyone that you cannot help but relate to its spirit of empowerment. See, all we have to do is believe and they can’t hurt us. But the truth is so much more difficult than that. They can hurts us. They often do. They kill so many of us. This is Me is another lie. It is a lie so many of us desperately need. I understand that need. It’s like “It gets better” and “that which does not kill us makes us stronger.” It sounds so good and sometimes is what we need to make it through. If it wasn’t for the problematic nature of The Greatest Showman’s subject matter I might give it a pass and just say it is the narcotic we sometimes need to get through the day. But if that narcotic is also slowly killing us, is it really the best choice?

The film is guilty of contradicting its own message of empowerment for anyone who isn’t Barnum and his family, or who don’t see themselves reflected in Barnum and his family. The film itself marginalizes it’s own freaks it is supposedly saving. Who gets to have romance in the film? Only the pretty people. The film pats itself on the back for telling (a completely fictitious) interracial love story. The bearded lady doesn’t get romance. The little people don’t get to be sexual adults. But the gorgeous white guy wins over the lovely black girl despite the harm it may cause her. And of coarse our hero, the great man himself gets his pure love story, the story of the dream American nuclear family. It’s the lie the film is selling us. It’s all part of how happy and secure we all want to feel in our lives, but only if we fit into certain categories. The rest are just lucky to be taken along by the generous hero.

I do feel The Greatest Showman is a dangerous lie but I understand why people are attracted to it. I see how these sorts of narratives can make living in a difficult world more bearable. But the danger comes in how these narratives can reinforce for those who are the exploiters feel good about their actions and that’s the kind of art I will often attempt to deconstruct. But these pills are everywhere. It is not just The Greatest Showman.

Then there is the jagged little pill that is The Last Jedi. Star Wars is fantasy, a fantasy that has told it’s own version of the heroic arc time and time again. The rise of Luke Skywalker to hero, plucked from his secret grand legacy has all the hallmarks of that same myth making The Greatest Showman is doing to P. T. Barnum. But Luke Skywalker isn’t a real person and we don’t have to reconcile the real person with who we see on screen. Skywalker is the myth we tell ourselves of who we want to believe in. Until writer director Rian Johnson comes along and says, wait a minute…

The Last Jedi takes so much of our popular mythmaking and asks us to question it. And Yoda laughs while it all burns around us. The Last Jedi holds up a mirror and says, you’ve been lied to. The day is often not saved when the hero steps up. Often people still die, often evil triumphs, often people are rewarded for doing bad things, for hurting others.

The Last Jedi is a story about failure, about dreams coming to an end, but it offers some inspiration regardless, finding its spark of hope in something different, something accessible to everyone. Instead of needing to tell us all we have to do is believe in ourselves, it tells us that we might survive and might live to face another challenge, and that it is those around us giving for each other, each of us, which is what can get at least some of us through. This is a difficult and uncomfortable piece of hope, and not at all as secure or reassuring as what The Greatest Showman offers.

Also different from the other film, The Last Jedi doesn’t tell us that there is a white male hero to worship. In fact it takes that idea away from us. Whether it is Luke’s struggles with all his failures and the failure of his religion or the way the resistance survives only in spite of the “heroic” actions of its cocky would be saviours, The Last Jedi isn’t a heroes’ journey. The Greatest Showman centres everything around the white man lead saving the day. The Last Jedi tears this down. It continually centres women and people of colour. It questions who we think are supposed to be our heroes. It sets up a potential “villain” in Laura Dern’s Holdo, paints her as strikingly feminine and reads her as the typical block the hero must overcome to achieve his greatness. Only that’s not how the story plays out. Our very typical movie going expectations are upended when it turns out she’s the real hero and the “hero” we thought of was standing in her way.

The film does something similar when Finn decides to sacrifice himself for the cause, another typical movie trope. This is spoiled when he is saved by Rose who sees things so much clearer, more real, than he could see them. Perhaps because of her losses and the way her sister died so she could live. His sacrifice would have accomplished nothing. He fails. This isn’t how we’re supposed to feel when we go to these movies. We’re supposed to feel lifted up and told we can do it! We aren’t supposed to question it.

Speaking of questioning things, the side trip to Canto Bright, often the target of those critical of the movie, is an exercise in making us question our world. It is a big glowing arrow shining down on the kind of hypocrisy which makes capitalism work. Questioning capitalism is not something we want to see happen in our escapist entertainment. It is disruptive to our comfort zone. In the middle of this storyline we have the introduction of Benicio Del Toro’s ambiguous DJ which is also troubling for so many. Is he a hero or a villain? He has to be one, right? I need to know how to feel about him. Why isn’t the movie telling me how to feel about each character as they do in The Greatest Showman?

But the biggest crime of The Lat Jedi is the way it literally connects our hero and our villain. Rey and Kylo’s psychic connection is a sticking point for so many. The Last Jedi spends a great deal of time deconstructing the idea of the “light side” and the “dark side” of the force, cause our myths often require this division. Connecting those representing that, getting us to understand Kylo’s fears and backstory, telling us that Rey is a so called “nobody,” these are issues too difficult to think about while eating our popcorn. They make us question ourselves and the way we feel comfortable with who we are and how we live our lives. It awakens us to ideas of truth which are uncomfortable. Luke makes his last ditch hail mary but certainly doesn’t get the kind of heroic end that we have been told we need to feel satisfied. Everything we expect about a blockbuster is questioned and perhaps belittled. That is definitely not the kind of feelings we want to get at the multiplex. 

We respond to films (any kind of art) that makes us feel the way we want to. So we select the pill we want to take. Do we want to be lied to to feel good and comfortable, to reinforce our "American Dream" or do we want to face our truths, see the challenges ahead and believe we may be able to tackle them?

The Greatest Showman is about making us feel good and comfortable with our world as it is. We can believe what we are doing is good and right and that goodness will prevail. The Last Jedi makes us uncomfortable and makes us question what we have assumed about so much, while still leaving us with the hope that maybe the struggle is worth it, maybe together we can live to see another day. No guarantees.

So much of our reaction to each film is about which pill we want to take, the comfortable lie or the uncomfortable truth. And, as with so much “art,” how we respond says so much about who we are.

Tomb Raider (2018)

A lot has changed since Angelia Jolie put on the tank top to bring the video game character Lara Croft to life. Back then action tent poles were dominated by the work of directors like Michael Bay and tended to be fairly absurd exercises without a focus on character or screenplay. Today, many of the big Hollywood blockbusters are made by auteurs and aim higher on the quality scale. Now the Tomb Raider franchise is trying to reboot itself as a more serious action pic a la Jason Bourne, and less Con Air.

Angelia Jolie was an Oscar winner when she played Ms. Croft as is the current iteration Alicia Vikander. However Vikander's take is less focused on the breasts and more on the Sarah Connor style action hero. The plot attempts to take itself more seriously too. Lara's story is the same, troubled rich girl goes after a mystery involving her dead father. Despite the more grounded take, the action still falls on the grandiose side. But this film does feel a lot less silly than the previous take.

But other than that is there anything new here? Take out the camp and it's just another action film. There isn't even novelty in a female action hero as that is far more commonplace than before. While a generally entertaining movie, this new Tomb Raider feels rather generic and forgettable. It offers little to excite its audience for a sequel. It is a rather vanilla turn.

So the question had to be asked, why a new Tomb Raider film? I'm not sure the answer is here.

Tomb Raider
Starring: Alicia Vikander, Dominic West, Daniel Wu, Walton Goggins, Kristin Scott Thomas, Derek Jacoby, Nick Frost
Director: Roar Uthaug
Writers: Geneva Robertson-Dworet, Alastair Siddons, Evan Daughtry

Superman the Movie (the extended cut) (1978) TOP 100

I was 10 years old when I took a large cardboard box which had held my parents' new fridge when it was delivered, and made from it a homemade "car" complete with cushions, pillows, and layers of blankets so I could cozy up in front of the TV as if it was my own personal drive-in theatre for a two-night event. The event was the television airing of Superman the Movie. What I didn't know at the time was that it contained 40 minutes of additional footage not previously shown in cinemas, footage I wouldn't see again for 35 years. I spent the next two evenings comfy in my home made drive-in loving what has remained one of my favorite movies of all time.

Superman the Movie not only excited and entertained my 10 year old self, it defined for me who Superman was, what he represented, and what heroism can mean. As I grew older and became a comic book nerd/collector, I would come to prefer certain alternate takes on the Superman mythos (for example I prefer "Clark" to be the true persona and "Superman" the put-on identity - just a preference), but this film continued to be a standard by which I would judge all Superman stories, and superhero stories in general. Watching Superman the Movie, with or without the extra scenes, it remains the quintessential Superman story. Director Richard Donner had done something amazing with this film even if it didn't follow the comic books as much as I might have liked, even if time doesn't turn back by changing the rotation of the earth, even if the laws of physics are bent and broken a few times. Like the ads said, I believed a man could fly.

I pretty much have the entire theatrical cut movie script memorized which is why, now once again being able to watch the extended cut for the first time in decades, so much of it feels fresh and new. I will admit that the many longer scenes slow down the narrative. However, they also flesh out what often felt a bit rushed and choppy in the original cut. Many of the additions are small moments, additional lines, a little longer shots, which embellish and embolden the truncated scenes I was used to and make small anomalies suddenly make sense, I can watch this film at any length because it is that damn entertaining. That's the point. I never get tired of this film. Canonically I may prefer the approach to the characters and the look of 2013's Man of Steel, but Superman the Movie is a film I will never tire of watching, a film that remains so perfectly entertaining and magical. From the iconic score to the perfectly structured three acts, Donner's film is a triumph of movie magic.

Every time I start the film I am reminded in the opening moments just how special it is. The film starts with a curtain opening (think Moulin Rouge!) and a black and white screen shows us Action Comics #1, where it all started, a reference true comic lovers relish especially in 2018 as issue 1000 of Action Comics is being released. We know we aren't just watching any movie, telling any superhero story. We are watching the movie telling the superhero story. Brando's Krypton scenes are classically scifi gorgeous. Fleshed out in the extended cut this part flows much nicer. The original and directors cuts always made this part feel a bit jolty. Clearly they had cut quite a bit and seeing it all restored it feels more organic. We follow young Kal-El through space to 1950s Americana (actually Alberta just outside my hometown) and Clark's childhood is encapsulated efficiently and beautifully.

There is a scene here that made the directors cut which always stuns me. Elder Martha is looking out at her grown son struggle with his adulthood in the field through the screen door. It is gorgeous and tragic and perfectly lovely. It's a scene that is often forgotten or missed by most audiences focused on the larger set pieces. But for me this is a moment of great gravity, a moment where I connect so closely to Clark. As a child the character resonated for me as an adopted boy, all awkward and alien, wondering who I would be. This version of the character will always resonate for me in a way few movie heroes do, and its these little moments which get me.

Donner's scene creating the Fortress of Solitude, which manages to fit the exposition in quite organically (not an easy feat), not only functions to get backstory explained but is also a thing of beauty. There is something so completely iconic about that set, resembling nothing like it before. And we are introduced to the Man of Steel, no longer hidden.

Donner films the Daily Planet like something all 70s modern urgent out of Network or All the President's Men. The Sorkinesque banter between Perry White, Lois Loan, and Jimmy Olsen, amid the chaos of the newsroom, is sheer entertainment and Metropolis is filmed as the heart of modernity, an ethos we have left behind in our post-modern malaise but one that fits for this Superman to exist in. Superman's debut, rescuing Lois from the falling helicopter is a superhero moment never topped in any film. It has been copied often in all sorts of media (Sam Raimi's Spider-man rips it off almost verbatim for example) as is the bullet catching scene in the alley (inspiring Patty Jenkin's Wonder Woman film). These moments, almost more than any other representation of Superman ever, create our understanding of who he is. The hero we wish we had in the real world.

A scene I always get excited for is Lois Lane's rooftop interview and the romantic flight. Funny, idyllic, and spot on classic, it feels genuine. It feels so real. This is one of the scenes where Christopher Reeve's amazing performance comes through. His balancing of his identities, the way he invests us in each, and his struggle with all the complications of his life, is remarkable. Reeves would go on to be a hero in his own right, but he gives a wonderful performance here. As does Gene Hackman in his lovely turn as Lex Luthor. I do generally prefer the evil corporate Lex (most perfectly encapsulated in Superman the Animated Series) but Hackman makes me forgive that as he plays off Ned Beatty and Valerie Perirne in such delightful scenes. Look at the names in this film. Brando, Cooper, Ford, Stamp. This is a cast to die for. Sometimes watching it I am amazed this even came together at all understanding, as I now do, the troubled shoot this film had.

But the miracle is it does exist. This film is part of a small cohort of films which set the standard for what a blockbuster film can be. As a child I became a cinemaphile because of films just like this. I have watched some cut of this film almost every year of my life and I enjoy it each time, each time I appreciate something different. Often copied but never duplicated, Superman the Movie, in its fullest form, remains one of my favorite films of all time, a film I will watch endlessly, a film by which so many others are inspired and compared. As the melody of one of film's most iconic scores plays out I am inspired once again by the film.

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son"

Superman the Movie
Starring: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder, Ned Beatty, Valerie Perrine, Jack O'Halloran, Marlon Brando, Jackie Cooper, Glenn Ford, Terrance Stamp, Susanna York
Director: Richard Donner
Writers: Mario Puzo, David Newman, Leslie Newman, Robert Benton

Thoroughbreds (2018)

Playwright Cory Finley has burst onto the cinema scene with an explosively good debut, the dark thriller Thoroughbreds. From the opening scene, Thoroughbreds punches you in the gut, but so subtly you're not sure what's going on. Finley builds a serious sense of dread, displacement, and concern while at the same time seducing you with two enticingly complex characters played by strong young actors who are showing us they are both something to be reckoned with. All this and Anton Yelchin gives a wonderful final performance in a part that would easily be forgettable if it wasn't for his own talent. Thoroughbreds is a shot over the bow from young talent saying we're here and you're going to notice.

Finley's tight screenplay is fraught with tension, rich in characterization, and filled with insight into some difficult emotions. Thoroughbreds is asking us to relate to a sociopath, no demanding we do, and is successful in that demand. It examines the experience of lack of empathy not from a place of fear or revulsion but, ironically, with empathy. And it does so with an engaging, enjoyable dark tale that doesn't take time out for filler, just follows its trajectory through one of the most satisfying arcs I've seen in a while. Stylishly filmed, yet without egregious flourishes, Thoroughbreds isn't just a successful screenplay. Finley shows an eye for great visual storytelling. He keeps it simple yet sophisticated, and downright delicious.

A big part of this is the casting. Anya Taylor-Joy is cast against type as the poor little rich girl, and succeeds as wonderfully as she has playing the more disturbed characters she has taken on before this. Olivia Cooke is also remarkable as the sociopath with a big heart. She is completely engaging and convincing and downright lovable. And finally Yelchin takes his character and makes it as memorable as possible in what is so sadly his last role. He will be missed.

Thoroughbreds jolts you in that wonderful way that seeing new talent on display makes you excited for whatever can come next.

Thoroughbreds
Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Olivia Cooke, Anton Yelchin, Paul Sparks
Writer/Director: Cory Finley

A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

Imagine a film by David Lynch, Deepa Mehta, Sally Potter, or Yorgos Lanthimos, film makers who aren't beholden to linear narratives, plot lines laid out step by step, explaining every motivation, tying visuals to reality. Now imagine it accessible for all ages. This is what visionary director Ava DuVernay has made, a film which transcends the expectations of how stories can be, and should be told, a film which liberates its audience to feel its story, to fill in the missing pieces, to use their minds.

A Wrinkle in Time has been transformed here by DuVernay's imagination. She has created something which asks its audience to go on a different sort of an adventure, the kind which we have to participate in, not just sit back and be told something. She has populated her story with characters who bring a richer set of perspectives than we are used to and set them in a beautiful world (or worlds). And it's a beautiful adventure, designed to empower its audience. It couldn't do so if it held our hand all the way through. So much of its strength comes from the way it leaves interpretation open.

A Wrinkle in Time is gorgeous, spectacular actually. Often a film like this can be overwhelmed by its special effects but here the worlds' fantastic elements strengthen the story. Her visual choices generate multiple, perhaps contradictory and confusing, emotions enriching the story. It is the way DuVerynay communicates the emotions of the film through her construction which was the most remarkable aspect of the film.

I understand why films like this are hard for many. It is often easiest to guide people through a story, suggest how they are supposed to feel, and explain exactly why each thing happens. But for others, the idea of piecing together symbolic moments, exploring and wrestling with these conundrums, makes the film so much richer.

As the film began its story, I found myself pulled deeply into its mysteries, its sentiments. I awed at the way it invited us in and as it played out towards a climax, more spiritual and intimate than literal, I lost myself in it, in its hero Meg and her flawed strength. I lost myself in the magic of movies. And I loved it.

A Wrinkle in Time
Starring: Oprah Winfrey, Storm Reid, Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling, Chris Pine, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Zach Galifinakis,  Michael Pina, Deric McCabe, Andre Holland
Director: Ava DuVernay
Writer: Jennifer Lee

Mohawk (2018)

I love film makers who can do a lot with very little. Ted Geoghegan may not yet be Sean Baker (The Florida Project). His films still feel low budget and a bit on the cheap. But what he does with them remains remarkable. Here he tells the story of a female Mohawk warrior and her two poly bisexual male lovers, one British, one Mohawk, who burn down an American military encampment in the War of 1812, and are then stalked and hunted by the surviving American soldiers. It's brutal and edge of your seat exciting with an intense ending that makes it worth the ride.

Geoghegan sets his story completely in the unencroached forests as the European wars spill into American territory. His characters are well drawn and complicated and his take-it-as-it-is style highlights the savagery of war and the desperation of those caught in it. He upends all traditional assumptions about who is good and bad and presents a refreshing point of view to tell his harsh tale.

Mohawk may not be polished but it is as powerful as higher budget films. It also may not be for everyone. Those who can't stand violence presented for what violence is will spend a lot of time looking away. But if you are interested in seeing this warrior's tale, see her rail against colonialists, see passion between three lovers push them to the brink of survival, then Mohawk is a film for you.

Mohawk
Starring: Kaniehtiio Horn, Eamon Farren, Justin Rain, Ezra Buzzington
Director: Ted Geohegan
Writers: Grady Hendrix, Ted Geohegan

Red Sparrow (2018)

The non-comic accurate Constantine. The cliched I Am Legend. The trying Water for Elephants. Three of the Hunger Games movies. This is the track record of director Francis Lawrence. Was there any reason he would suddenly produce a film that didn't feel terribly average? Sure the idea of Jennifer Lawrence as super-spy is enticing, even exciting. The trailers were tailor made to generate excitement picking small moments of intriguing shots. Lawrence does not have a problem with shooting nice looking films. His challenge is in telling interesting stories.

And that's the main problem with Red Sparrow, his collaboration with Jennifer Lawrence (I don't beleive there is a relation), who is clearly trying something brave here. The film's story isn't interesting. It is text book, standard spy thriller, to the point where it all feels cribbed from something else. Perhaps in the way that I Am Legend felt like a facsimile of apocalyptic adventures and Water for Elephants felt like a pale attempt at romantic fiction. There is always a yearning for something meaningful or authentic in his work.

Red Sparrow has one interesting aspect going for it. The film attempts to examine how we use sex to engage our personal, professional, economic transactions. There is an idea here that is fascinating, connecting our sexuality to the many areas that we interact with the world. However when I say "attempts to examine" I really mean "scratch the surface" and then dump it to fall into tired old plots of who-is-playing-who and falling-for-the-wrong-spy.  But there was the seed planted. I wanted more of that.

Lawrence, a huge star right now who can write her own ticket, takes this on bravely by putting her own sexuality out there. But it feel somewhat squandered on a less than intricate story. As I said it feels Sparrow drops the ball on the interesting parts. Sexuality in film is a difficult trick to pull off without it feeling exploitative or gratuitous. I think I understood where Sparrow was going with it but I'm not sure it got there.

And seeing the potential in something which doesn't make it can be a melancholy experience.

Red Sparrow
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Joel Edgerton, Matthias Schoenaerts, Charlotte Rampling,  Mary Louise Parker, Jeremy Irons
Director: Francis Lawrence
Writer: Justin Haythe

Oscar nominated Animated Short Filmes (2018)

Animated films hold a special place in my heart. While there are always plenty more, it is often a treat to see those selected for the Oscar. The following 5 films are all worthy selections and if you get a chance you should see them.

Lou
Pixar remains one of the strongest of the big studios when it comes to animation and this very short film about bullying is classic Pixar. Touching yet poignant, a positive and delightful watch which speaks to something in all our childhoods.

Dear Basketball
While I don't care about basketball at all, this lovely, sketchy little film based on Kobe Bryant's retirement speech can speak to anyone. It is about aspirations and finding those lovely things which bring us joy.

Garden Party
This twisted and dark little film starts out looking like something charming but as it goes on the secrets are revealed. A story about some amphibian mischief ends up being delightfully disturbing. Better not to know about it and just see where it takes you. Party is the most photo-real of the films this year which is neither here nor there. Sometimes a lovely photo-realistic film can be gorgeous but sometimes a more interpretive visual style can be even more beautiful.

Revolting Rhymes
This is based on Roald Dahl's work which is enough to make it awesome. It is basically a revisionist take on fairy tales such as Red Riding Hood, Snow White, and the Three Little Pigs. Told from the point of view of the wolf, this will make you question what you know. My least favorite visually, of these five but one of the most interesting stories in the group.

Negative Space
For me the winner is this touching, and gorgeous little stop motion film about a boy being taught to pack a suitcase by his dad. Moving and profound while remaining the most striking visually to watch. If you can track down this little gem I would strongly recommend it.