Change Your Image
steveo554
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
I had a great time here
They say Hollywood has struggled with creativity over the years. Every other movie is a sequel or a remake or a franchise piece. There aren't too many fresh or new movies anymore probably because of bigger risks. A new movie poses less of a guarantee of return. This sets moviegoing back as this means creative and entertaining films will get put on the backburner until it's too late. Case in point: Bad Times at the El Royale.
This movie came out in 2018 at the same time as Venom. It's an R-rated film clocking at over 2 hours and had minimal marketing, so it was pretty doomed to fail. The movie is written and directed by Drew Goddard who gave us The Martian, The Cabin in the Woods, and Netflix's Daredevil. Despite all these setbacks, the movie is incredibly fun, creative, entertaining, and well-executed. It plays with themes that few movies really do with a very slick style.
A group of strangers with different backstories come to stay at a hotel called the El Royale, resting exactly on the Nevada-California border. Among them are a priest who's really a mobster (Jeff Bridges), a backup singer (Cynthia Erivo), an FBI agent playing a traveling salesman (Jon Hamm), and a girl with a body in her trunk (Dakota Johnson). Their stories ultimately weave together and expose something bigger and more twisted at this hotel.
The ensemble work is really solid in this film. I love movies with great ensembles, and this one is no exception. Special praise should be reserved for Bridges and Erivo for their performances here. The chemistry they have together works so well, and the stories they have really keep you intrigued. Lewis Pullman is the breakout star in this movie as the bellhop with a guilty conscience. He comes off as a bit of a pest to Bridges at first but grows on you and pulls off a hell of a finish in the end.
What really sells this movie is the overall direction and construction. I don't just mean the creative sets; the hotel alone looks really cool and well designed. Goddard's directing and writing keep you really guessing and intrigued enough to want to stay for the ride. There are deep secrets in this movie, and we may not know them all but don't need to know them all. The scene where Jon Hamm goes to this hidden hallway that shows what everyone does in their rooms makes us wonder both who these people are and what kind of hotel we're in. The writing is also pretty tight as well. There aren't too many loose strings minus a MacGuffin very similar to the briefcase in Pulp Fiction: we don't know what it is and serves no real purpose other than to move the plot forward.
The script plays a lot about themes of morality and redemption. Questions like whether we should feel guilt over things we do or if we can still be good people even if we do bad things get raised. The hotel has been interpreted as symbolizing Heaven and Hell. One side doesn't allow alcohol, for instance. The two-way mirrors show how someone, i.e. A God-figure, could judge a person's actions when no one is looking. And the Charles Manson character represents ultimate hedonism and disregard for all morality. Everyone has a complicated past, but can we truly be redeemed for our sins?
My biggest concern is the movie's length. At times, it does feel like it drags on, and you wonder how there's still so much movie left at the beginning of the third act. The film's soundtrack does soften the blow with an excellent use of "Hush" by Deep Purple. Chris Hemsworth's turn as the devil character in this movie is a unique turn from his time playing Thor. Not entirely perfect but also not too bad, either. He definitely makes you feel nervous about what he'll do next.
I heard a lot of people call this a poor-man's Tarantino film, and I can see that, but I'd take a poor-man's Tarantino over a mediocre Marvel movie any day. This is an excellent and severely underrated film. One with great acting, writing, directing, editing, and sets. If you get a chance, give the El Royale a visit. You may like what you find.
Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)
A Unique and Interesting Movie that's Actually Quite Necessary
I didn't see this movie when it came out, but I remember it got the internet talking. It wasn't until it was nominated for the Oscars that I finally got to seeing it.
And honestly, I could see why the hype was there.
This is a very unique film filled with some excellent performances and really cool fight scenes. It also plays deep with certain topics like meaning, regret, nihilism, and multidimensional connection. All the while leaning in with a veneer of absurdism.
Michelle Yeoh plays Evelyn, an elderly mother struggling to keep her business afloat, her marriage together, and her daughter's sexual orientation a secret. There's a lot of tension and drama surrounding her family and the IRS agent that makes her very miserable. During her meeting, she learns that there are multiple universes that are at risk of destruction from an entity known as Jobu Topacky, and only she can save them. Evelyn learns how to tap into her alternate versions and learn different skills and lessons to survive.
I think a lot of the negative reviews so far come from people who couldn't get past the absurdism. I mean, there's an alternate dimension where everyone has hot-dog fingers. There are also dimensions where everyone's a rock. All this is meant to be silly. The metaverse is a motif for deeper lessons on finding value and meaning even when things look bleak. We all look back and wonder what our lives would be like if we made different decisions. We all wonder if we're truly living our best lives. We also wonder if we should simply accept our lives or demand something better.
Waymond is the true hero of this movie. Ke Huay Quan came out of retirement for this role and absolutely nails it. The sad, sweet husband tries so hard to bring out the best in Evelyn even when she won't listen and delivers I think the true message of the film: make the most out of the chaos. This runs in deep contrast with Jobu who simply believes that nothing truly matters. If everything is chaos, there's no point in us feeling anything.
I've often heard the term "cheerful nihilism" thrown out a couple of times. Rick and Morty come to my mind. So many of us have given into the cynicism being portrayed in our media. We've become "blackpilled" about a lot of things. So, to see a movie that tells us to make the most of our situations even if they don't seem ideal was a refreshing change of pace.
I've also learned to divorce the Academy Awards from the public consumption. Top Gun Maverick is my favorite film from 2022, but EEAAO was my pick for Best Picture at the Oscars. It's unique, filled with great performances, editing, direction, and a creative story.
I doubt people will forget this film in five years. There's too much in it for us to forget it. Compared to movies like Nomadland, The Shape of Water, and Argo, I'd say this is one of the most deserving of praise and Best Picture.
But that's my opinion.
Tár (2022)
Not the best film of the year...but it asks a lot of important questions
"If you make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him."
These words come from villain Ivan Vanko from Iron Man 2, but they sum up very well the nature of Tar. This is a movie that is fascinating on its own terms: it flopped in the box office (as many prestige films do) but also got a lot of people talking. After seeing this movie, I was surprised as to how much of it stuck with me.
I will go on and say that you'll hate this movie after the first view. The pacing is deliberate, the editing minimal, the cinematography distant and peculiar. The classical music jargon comes at you fast and over your head. Once you step back and look at the big picture however, you'll see something you wish existed more often these days.
Cate Blanchett plays Lydia Tar, an acclaimed orchestra composer and conductor. At the beginning of the film, she's praised for being the first woman to conduct the Berlin Orchestra about to perform a piece by Mahler. She's about to release a memoir and works closely with her assistant and protege while in Berlin. However, as she begins her rehearsals, things begin to appear or happen that will ultimately lead to her undoing: random emails from a conductor that appear erratic. Orchestra politics that result in people losing positions or opportunities. Hidden desires that warp her judgments.
To say that Blanchett gives a stellar performance goes without saying. The woman is truly a chameleon. How she embodies this character makes her truly fascinating. She commands presence and shows little vulnerability which is either a strength or a weakness. She keeps everyone, including her wife, at a distant. It is only when we see her true feelings that we get a closeup. Tar is someone who not only knows what she's doing but embodies her position. She's someone who feels she's earned her place, probably because she has. And to see her be oblivious to the factors that will destroy her will have you feeling a little sorry for her.
The camerawork did something I found unique once I understood the trick: we are kept at a distance from Lydia throughout most of the movie. At first, I saw this as strange, but then I wondered if it's because Tar keeps everyone at a distance as well. Because she doesn't let anyone know who she really is, she keeps us at a distance. It's only when she breaks her mask that we get a closeup of her.
The movie starts off very sluggish. We're introduced with a laundry list of accomplishments followed by seemingly innocuous things that snowball into something bigger. Once the ball gets moving, it moves pretty quickly. A conductor keeps emailing her assistant implying that Tar is blackballing her and ultimately commits suicide. A class in Julliard where Tar mocks a student for playing identity politics gets edited to make her sound racist and released. Her assistant quits and ruins her manuscript after Tar denies her a guest composer position.
Many have stated that this is about the corrupting allure of power, but I don't see it. Unlike in The Favourite, Lydia doesn't play games to get power nor does she abuse it. She makes decisions that anger some people, but she doesn't try to step on toes to climb the ranks. To me, this movie is about Man's desire to bring down the gods, or rather Man's desire to kill God. The scene at Julliard being released has been used as a representation of cancel culture, and I can see it. But it's also the Post attaching the suicide with Tar, the protests outside her reading, the assistant destroying the manuscript. It's Lydia's breakdown as she starts her performance live. It's seeing her when she reaches bottom. We see Lydia Tar from beginning to end and ask ourselves, "does she deserve this fate?" "Does this acclaimed conductor deserve to get what she does?"
None of this is to suggest that Tar is innocent. She tries to use her power to get a cellist top honors, and it's clear the intentions are sexual. It's also implied this isn't the first time, either. But you wonder if the punishment fits the crime, and that's what stuck with me.
There are those who deserve to be written out or punished: from Harvey Weinstein to Derek Chauvin to Amber Heard. Though we often wonder if we can separate the art from the artist and if we should. Should Woody Allen be dismissed because of his sexual deviancies? Should J. K. Rowling have her cultural significance erased because of her views on women and transgenderism? Should Will Smith be banned from the Academy Awards for ten years because he slapped Chris Rock? We have these expectations that people of higher class or esteem be more like us and even demand that be the case. We also have the desire to control or destroy them if they don't. This is why Pedro Pascal and Gina Carano suffered different punishments for similar memes.
Like I said, this isn't the best film of the year. It's not even one of my favorites; but it's a film that asks some important questions regarding human nature, and that's enough for me to recommend it.
Cocaine Bear (2023)
As dumb as you would expect...and that's actually a good thing.
When you have a movie called "Cocaine Bear", you expect nothing less than a bear on a drug-induced rampage. You get what you pay for and nothing else.
This is a movie that knows it's ridiculous and sadly doesn't lean into it enough. Though, you can't deny that everyone in this film enjoys himself (or herself) with the premise.
Based on a true story (and I do mean "based"), this tells the story of a man who dumped a lot of cocaine in the Chattahoochie National Forest. A bear gets into it, and all hell breaks loose. It weaves three different subplots: a mother looking for her lost daughter (Keri Russell), two drug dealers looking for the lost stash (O'Shea Jackson, Jr. And Ehrlen Emmerich), and a cop looking to capture the drug dealers (Isaiah Whitlock, Jr.)
None of the characters are really deep. Emmerich, the son of a drug kingpin (the late Ray Liotta in his final role), grieves the death of his wife. Keri Russell wants her child back. Jackson loves his clothes and shoes. No one here is someone you feel too sorry for, but that's passable with a movie like this. No one watches a slasher or a monster movie to sympathize with the characters too much. Jackson and Russell make the most with their characters, and seeing Jesse Tyler Ferguson playing a Southern forester was surprisingly entertaining. Probably because you get Mitchell Pritchett with a Southern accent (not a bad thing). The bear was also a decent albeit cheap effect. You know it's a CGI bear, but it's a beautiful, emotive beast that gets into mode.
While everyone has fun with this ridiculous premise, and there's plenty of blood and gore to go around, the movie doesn't really go into much of the silliness as it should. The deaths don't seem too over the top or hilarious. Only a handful of moments had me really laughing. It's a movie that wants to be a cult film but doesn't quite understand what makes a cult film. You would think that someone like Elizabeth Banks with her comedic background would know how to bring more comedy into this premise.
Fortunately, this flaw isn't enough for me to say "don't watch this film". It's fun enough and ridiculous enough to warrant all the jokes. I can't say that you'll be bored because you won't. There's enough in this movie to elevate it from the same fate as "Snakes on a Plane": it's not a joke forcing itself to be a thing. Just remember that you get what you pay for and little else.
Captain Marvel (2019)
Ideology is not the same as Personality.
Even if you don't take Brie Larson's toxic personality into consideration, a lot about this movie doesn't really connect well considering how far we've come with Marvel movies.
For starters, we don't connect with Carol because she's supposed to be all-powerful but also a victim. A lot of this is based on ideology instead of character development. We can connect with Iron Man because he is someone who tries to do the right thing after seeing what his gifts could do in the wrong hands. We can connect with Thor because he's someone with a great background realizing that he's called for something bigger. In a sense, Captain Marvel is the dark side of Captain America: where one held old-school values in a new world, she believed in fighting back against...forces that held her back.
As a result, we don't get any real struggle or anything fascinating with her character. It's not like Black Widow who had a checkered past and wanted to clear it as best as she could. We get a superhero whom we're supposed to admire because she's a powerful victim. On top of that, the dialogue really hamfists a lot of feminist talking points, even shoe-horning a "smiling is sexist" comment.
Just about everything else was either fine or really cool. The nineties jokes were pretty funny, and seeing Samuel L. Jackson as a young Nick Fury was entertaining. Ben Mendelsson playing something that isn't a villain was refreshing (he played the King in Darkest Hour, but he really is talented).
Overall, this was a stale movie that pushes too many buttons and checks off not-enough boxes.
Modern Family: All Things Being Equal (2017)
Pokes fun of feminists, not feminism
Sure, this is "The Women's March Episode", but it also lampoons modern feminists and how they think, act, etc. The segment also pokes fun at how/why guys might consider themselves feminist (really for sex) and why some women who embrace feminism don't really understand what it entails (actual self-sufficiency).
Sure, it recycles old and debunked feminist talking points (it's an earnings gap, not a wage gap), but it takes something relevant to the time and puts the characters in it.
I've seen some real examples of woke television; Brooklyn Nine-Nine, which I enjoy, really hammers it into our faces. This episode is nowhere near that level of cringe.
Once you see it as unintentionally based as opposed to intentionally trying to be feminist, it's a funny episode.
Richard Jewell (2019)
liberties were taken, but absolutely necessary
I freaking love this movie. I would say that it expanded Clint Eastwood's strengths as a director. I personally hate using the word "timely" because just because a movie comes out with a message that's popular now doesn't mean it'll age well. That being said, this story is probably more relevant now than it was back then.
For those who are unaware, Richard Jewell was a security guard that caught a bomb that exploded in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. At first, he was hailed as a hero, but the media and FBI portrayed him as the guy who planted it despite no real evidence.
The performances are outstanding. Paul Walter Heuser was the perfect choice to play Jewell as the guy with a good heart that got thrown in the wringer. I dare say this is one of Rockwell's best if not his best performance since he won the Oscar for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. And yet, only Kathy Bates gets nominated for the Oscar as Bobi. The only issue I have is with Olivia Wilde, and it's not really her fault. I will get to that much later.
Eastwood really does a solid job in directing this ensemble. I've seen a number of his films where everyone revolves around one lead actor. This is not the case. Jewell may have been the "main" character, but Rockwell, Wilde, and Hamm take the show each time they're on screen. The pacing is solid; no scene feels like it drags on, and you feel the pain and the misery of the situation even when the story itself may not feel that exhilarating.
That being said, this movie isn't without "controversy". People were upset that Wilde's character, Kathy Scruggs, was portrayed as a lascivious sleaze who slept with an FBI agent to get the scoop. This didn't really happen (or at least there's no proof), and the fact that she died in 2001 makes it even harder to prove. It's similar to how Ava Duvernay's documentary 13th included an infamous quote by Ehrlichman even though the quote didn't really surface until AFTER he died. There's no verification of proof. My concern, however, is that Wilde's performance comes off as really over-the-top. She's a good actress, but even I look at her and think this character is a parody of a journalist.
Another tidbit I love about this movie is the dialogue. It's natural enough not to feel like a script but contains enough moments of dialogue to stick with you. There's a scene where Bryant brings Jewell into the AJC office demanding a retraction and confronts Scruggs. She hides behind reporting the facts, to which he retorts "what about the truth?". This hits hard the problem with our current state of journalism: major media outlets spin statements that are correct but not true. It isn't just misreporting but misconceiving. Even though all they reported was that Jewell was seen as a suspect, it was the implication that mattered.
In short: facts don't care about your feelings, but facts can be used to boost a lie.
This movie is a modern fable about the use of power and that even with the best intentions, people can abuse it to hurt without consideration. Hamm's obsession with covering his tracks drove him to want to get back at Jewell. Scruggs obsession with getting the front page led her to drag Jewell's name in the mud. As Bryant says in the movie, "This isn't the United States government. It's just a bunch of pricks who work for the United States government." It reminds us that the forces designed to protect or inform us may not always do so. Yes, it's not 100% accurate, so you'll need to keep to your wits. However, you will not be disappointed.
Knives Out (2019)
A Surprisingly clever mystery that's not AS political as it seems
It's safe to assume that Rian Johnson polarizes people. He's a pretty decent writer who unfortunately can bog his script with some bad ideas. The ending of Looper and certain elements of The Last Jedi come to mind. However, his writing proves to be strong when everything works. And Knives Out works.
A revival of the whodunit genre, Knives Out brings back some of the classic tropes of the murder mystery with a script that leaves little unused. A lot of elements, albeit not all, serve a purpose and come back to play an important part. Overall, I hope to see a franchise revolving around Benoit Blanc's cases.
Blanc (Daniel Craig) is brought in to solve the murder of a family patriarch (Christopher Plummer). The suspects include his children (Jamie Lee Curtis, Toni Collette, Chris Evans, and Michael Shannon), their loved ones (Don Johnson, Katherine Wilford) and the caretaker Marta (Ana de Alvas). The family members have their motives, but only one person is guilty of murder.
The script takes the tropes of British mystery genres and gives them an American setting: the wealthy family members, an inheritance, the butler/maid, the rebellious children, and the gentleman detective. Daniel Craig really enjoys playing this role, and I wouldn't want to see anyone else play this. The movie does lag a bit in the middle, but you start to see everything come together in a way that really surprised me. A lot of pieces serve as obvious symbolism or even return as a Chekhov's gun, but that's the fun of the whodunit: you want to see how every piece is played. The game of Go, the knives, even the dialogue serve a purpose.
So there's a caveat that needs to be addressed and others will find in this film: the movie makes some heavy political jabs. A character's son is described as an "alt-right troll" and a nazi; another character's daughter is an SJW; there's a scene where everyone is arguing about Trump and illegal immigration. I, too, am getting tired of woke cinema lecturing Americans about how to vote. Hollywood has been deep in the Democrats' coffers and has made it clear that Andrew Breitbart was right - politics IS downstream from culture. Yet, the political tones aren't really as deep as some here have made it. At least, I didn't get a sense of lecturing from this film. The argument exists because Marta's mom is undocumented, and it foreshadows how the family will come after her near the end. But even the liberal characters, lifestyle guru Joni and her daughter, aren't shown as sympathetic characters. The former acts virtuous with her diatribes about "locking children in cages", but even she will throw someone under the bus for money. The alt-right grandson and granddaughter show no real signs of these labels; if no one said anything, you wouldn't really know. And you understand that the victim's intentions weren't political at all. It would be one thing if Joni was depicted as the voice of reason or in the right as Rose was supposed to be, but she wasn't. And this needs to be highlighted.
I've seen woke cinema - The Intern, BlacKkKlansman, Captain Marvel, The Last Jedi. Even the new Little Women makes woke statements. But if the phrase "go woke, go broke" works 8 times out of 10, Knives Out is in the lucky 20%. Just know that just because it throws politics around doesn't necessarily mean it's political.
1917 (2019)
A masterfully-made film that does get in its way sometimes.
Don't be confused: this movie was absolutely amazing. The way they shot many of the scenes from the No-Man's Land to the ruined village was absolutely breathtaking. This movie along with Blade Runner: 2049 should be studied on how to direct or shoot a film.
The film was also edited flawlessly as you could hardly find the cuts between scenes. And it really does work...most of the time. There were some scenes, such as when Schofield has an emotional moment, that take away from the true heartfelt potential in the film. The first ten minutes of the movie, I thought, didn't need the single-shot experience and made me feel distracted by the gimmick and not the movie.
But trust me: when it works, it really works. One of my favorite movies is Children of Men because of how the film was shot and edited. The part where Clive Owen tries to cut through the battlezone to get to the girl and her child was one of rhe most brilliant pieces of filmmaking I've seen. 1917 reminded me of that in many ways. Roger Deakins is a master cinematographer and really knows how to make a frame look like a painting. The scope of the camerawork captures so much depth that you do feel immersed in the film. The scene where Schofield runs from two German soldiers in a ruined village stands out the most for me. All of this combined with the incredibly powerful score really adds to the gravitas the film provides.
The most subtle piece that needs to be acclaimed, though, is the casting. That the two main actors are unknowns keeps the focus on them and their skills. The biggest names come and go like cameos, but you know exactly who they are. I don't know the two main actors, but you're engrossed with them and not distracted by their familiarity.
1917 is a masterful war epic. Beautifully shot, epically scored, solidly directed. There are moments where the style overpowers the substance, but it makes up with moments of solid storytelling.
American Sniper (2014)
A True American Classic, no matter what anyone says
Most people turn the other cheek at certain criticisms, especially when they come from the internet. However, I take issue with some of what people are saying about both American Sniper and the subject of the film, Chris Kyle. I will get to all of that in a moment, but first, about the movie.
American Sniper tells the story of the late Chris Kyle, a Texan who became a Navy Seal and the most lethal sniper in American history. With 160 confirmed kills out of 220, Kyle became a force with which to be reckoned. When he was honorably discharged, he spent time close to home and working with PTSD soldiers. It's a shame that he got killed while doing so. The movie powerfully tells this story through eyes that are rarely seen in cinema nowadays: through that of the soldier.
Clint Eastwood's direction and Bradley Cooper's portrayal of Kyle do stand out as a powerful tribute to the sniper, nicknamed "Legend" by his peers. Cooper's Texan ascent and the beard made him really blend in and take control of the character. The movie and the portrayal definitely deserved the nominations as both show the harsh realities of war. The radical extremists that the American forces had to fight used actual civilians for weapons. The opening scene has Kyle scoping down a mother giving her son a grenade to unleash on a tank of U.S. troops. Hell, there was a scene where he put a boy trying to lift an RPG in the cross hairs begging he put it down. All the while, the movie goes back and forth between the war in Iraq and the war back home. You witness his personal life get rocky as he takes a lot of it with him. He can't escape the harshness of what he had witnessed, but he never regretted a second of it.
The movie is incredibly powerful all the way to the end which brought tears to my eyes as you hear Ennio Morricone's "The Funeral" play the solemn memorial trumpet tune to clips of Kyle's funeral. Just when Kyle started to feel more at peace back home, tragedy struck.
The issues that I have with the movie weren't necessarily in the writing or directing, but rather the events that were left out or dramatized. Kyle was initially turned down by the SEALs because of an injury sustained in his arm. He never joined as the result of the terrorist attack in Libya; he always wanted to join. It just launched his chances. Certain characters were created as amalgamations of other people.
That being said, the facts still remain: Chris Kyle killed over a hundred enemy combatants; undoubtedly ruthless sociopath extremists that killed not just Americans but their own as well. Kyle saved many American lives with what he did on the battlefield as well as off it. The movie is an incredibly strong film that shows the true testament to the ugliness of war and the struggle to find peace.
However, some people find issue with the movie's portrayal of the war and Kyle. Not because the movie tried to portray the war as just because it didn't. The events in the movie (Libya, 9/11) weren't from the perspective of Americans but from the soldier. The issue that these people had was that it didn't condemn the war as unjust. It didn't portray the American government as crooked e as movies like "In the Valley of Elah" or "Syriana" did. Leftist critics like Matt Taibbi and Cynthia Taub miss the point of the film or worse try to twist it.
OAF Nation released an article that succinctly makes the point: this is not a movie from the perspective of civilians or from journalist but rather from the soldier. The soldier didn't care whether Saddam Hussein had any correlation with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. All it meant was the possibility of going into theater. Every soldier goes in wishing that he or she could prevent the deaths of fellow soldiers and friends because nothing is worse than seeing a loved one die let alone in combat.
The worst example of twisting the situation comes from everyone labeling Kyle as a "killer". Yes, he killed Iraqis, but he killed Iraqis who killed Iraqis as well as Americans. Why defend the sociopaths? The biggest issue was that Kyle had no regrets for what he did. No kidding, he didn't. Nothing is pretty in war. People want to kill you because you believe in something that they don't and see you as the threat for such a reason. He saw an evil in these people and wanted it to be fought. He didn't kill innocents; those that he killed intended to kill Americans. So why do people consider their own to be the villain in this fight?
American Sniper deserves the accolades it receives and more. It deserves the box office revenue it received. Bradley Cooper deserves the recognition for the portrayal, and Chris Kyle deserves better than what he's been getting since the movie came out in December.