Activity

I love Tom Hardy and he is one of my favorite modern actors. I'm also a big fan of Michelle Williams. Both actors are know for nuanced, often soul crushing parts with a lot of emotional depth. That's not on display with Venom, which is a terrible movie that enjoys the appetite of a pre-made sandwich that's sat too long at your local 7-11. Eating one just reminds you of what you wanted — a real sandwich. Instead you get a disappointing, soggy mess. Is it ham? Or ham-like? How was this sandwich constructed, and how did it arrive here? It is for sale though, and I'm hungry, so I guess I'll just sit here and eat it. I paid for it after all. Review? It stinks!

Ripley is my favorite Final Girl. The real star of the show of Alien is the set design of The Nostromo. Every detail of the ship, down to font usage and logos, is crafted with purpose. The Nostromo feels industrial, clunky, but somehow still futuristic. I think it’s one of the rare science fiction films that seems to get better with age. The older terminal interfaces and assorted technology feel purposefully ancient, as if the crew of the Nostromo is just making do with what they’ve been given by the corporation. Ridley Scott has a talent for this, and a similar thing can be said of his other classic Blade Runner. Between the two, I find Alien is the more watchable movie, and it’s a tense ride till the credits close.

"Zodiac" requires deep focus to keep up with its large cast and multi-decade timeline. At three-hours it's not a movie you pick up lightly, and I'll admit to finding myself a little lost at times in this recent viewing. Wait, that person lived? What was that victim's name? Which city did the original crime take place in? Some movies, even good movies, can be like that and you're meant to soak in the mood and tension more than the moment to moment facts. There's a lot going on in Zodiac. Having lived in San Francisco for twenty years I spent a lot of time reminiscing about the little boroughs and angled streets that make up this version, set mostly in the 70s. There's good work done to transport the city to that decade, and a nice interlude showing the construction of the Trans-America building is a nice reminder about the passage of time in the case. There's gotta be a dozen such "months later" titles in the film. Movies with large casts like this can be difficult, and the casting department deserves credit for casting fairly memorable faces, both in the small and big parts, to make it easy to remember who is who. Jake Gyllenhall as the cartoonist / book author Robert Graysmith is the only performance that feels a little odd. Gyllenhall plays him slightly touched, and overly odd, which may be true to life, but detracts from his investigation over the years. The other Marvel heroes Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo are better, and this might be Ruffalo's best work outside of "You Can Count on Me". This isn't a movie I need to rewatch often, having last seen it during its original release. I'm sure there's small details and footprints to pick up from director David Fincher, but like the occasional fancy date meal, I walked away stuffed. Sometimes a movie can require so much attention that I need a break. Watching "Zodiac" I did just that, and broke it up over two days.

"Thousand Pieces of Gold" is a weird one. It tells a Chinese woman's story about surviving against the backdrop of the American West. Despite its unique story, characters and perspective, the actual plot and overall theme are a mess. Is this a love story? A movie about the Chinese immigrants in America? A commentary on prostitution and the power dynamics between men and women? There are pieces of all of those things in here, but they all land awkwardly, almost at random as the movie progresses. It lacks focus. Let's assume this is a love story, since the closing title card seems to give the impression we're supposed to be happy for this couple. Cooper and Chao are fine actors, and they've created believable characters, but I can't get past the ripsaw-whiplash where rape attempts happen one moment, and then everyone wakes up to laughter and breakfast the next day. Maybe that's just part of the commentary about how a woman must survive after being bought and sold three or four times over the course of her life. Are we supposed to be happy that Lalu and Charlie are together in the end? I felt confused about what the character arc is. I'm guessing there are large chunks of this movie that might explain the characters' motivations better, but they were either cut for time or budget. There's no payoff. It's a shame because "Thousand Pieces of Gold" looks fantastic. Its unnamed ramshackle town compares well to more famous movies like Altman's "McCabe & Mrs. Miller". The overall tone of this film is excellent and it tells the invisible side of Western life that I wish was covered more often. Outside of a couple of scenes in "Deadwood" there's really no other telling of Chinese life in frontier towns. From a bird's eye perspective this story sounds riveting: a Chinese woman, sold into slavery, ends up in a mining town, but then escapes the constant, unwanted advances of men to become an independent businesswoman. Director Nancy Kelly is primarily a documentarian, and Lalu's journey is a real story (the movie is based on a book). It's an interesting backdrop, but a lousy way to tell it, true or not. This feels like a movie that should have taken more risks. This is dark subject matter, and there is some pretty gross stuff going on throughout, but everyone smiles and has short memories. Maybe it's a product of the times (taking this on in 1990 is ballsy enough!) or the indie nature of its making, but "Thousand Pieces of Gold" seems to treat its subject too cavalierly. I really don't know what to make of it, but found it interesting to watch for its historical, indie-cinema context . Ultimately, I want a better movie, because the amateur nature of its creation exacerbate its slipshod storytelling.

"X-Men: Apocalypse" is the worst kind of superhero film: overly-long, overly-serious, with a giant cast you can't follow spitting out lines that reach too far without purpose. It's a movie where you can see the exhaustion of the actors, some new, some old, who go through the motions and collect a payday. Need Wolverine? OK, we'll provide him for one scene. Let's make a Phoenix reference, and make Magneto even more distrustful of humans while we're at it. At the same time, let's ignore the established canon. The villain Apocalypse should be a pretty easy sell for Marvel fans. The "first mutant" has a cool origin and a squad of mini-bosses around him at all times, but he's ruined here with a portrayal that just has him walking slowly and suggesting his immense power. Everyone trembles! The use of actual X-Men as his four horseman seems like a need to provide even more costumed characters to the ballooned cast, and it leads to of-course-you-saw-that-coming moments where they eventually turn on him in the end. Some characters, like Olivia Munn's Psylocke, serve no point other than to grimace to the camera and wear the outfit the comic-con crowd wants. In some Marvel movies a city is under attack. The Avengers save New York, The X-Men save Cuba, or Washington D.C...etc. In this one the entire world is at threat, and we watch as lots of major cities start to crumble away due to Magneto's power. What happens next? What reference is ever made to this cataclysmic event later? How did those cities rebuild? It's all washed away in a two sentence epilogue. I think everyone involved in this movie knew it was a dud, and it's best to just forget the whole thing. Cut the check and run. My advice? Skip this, and check out the much better, animated "X-Men '97" series which makes the Apocalypse story truly engaging. This one? It stinks!

Superhero movies became oversaturated in our culture over a decade ago, but the Spider-Man movies are often just good-enough for my family to want to see them in the theaters. There's a lot of borrowed territory in this latest installment, and despite a fun introduction of Frank Castle, and a cameo with The Hulk, this one fell sort of flat for me. It's common for comic movies setup other comic book movies with small hints, but "Brand New Day" feels like the whole point of the movie is to setup a new franchise. I think I'm just too tired to care, and have preferred the animated "Spiderverse" films somewhat self-contained story-lines that keep things at least focused on one main universe of heroes. This movie feels like a long commercial, and doesn't progress any of the characters in any meaningful way. There's still some fun fight choreography, and the web-swinging has never been better, but the MJ-Peter relationship is off. The forget-me-not troubles of the couple wants to resolve itself with poignant conversations in between the action, but feels more like performative writing to attract now megastars to return to the franchise well past their interest. Spider-Man mentions in the film "I'm not a teenager anymore", which is true, but that character is best when he is, and the plucky jibes don't mix well with overly serious story-lines that might feel more natural if they weren't sandwiched between keeping the MCU going.

"Roofman" does just enough to make an interesting true story to keep you entertained. It's characters are just likeable enough to keep a pretty ho-hum plot going for a two-hour run-time. Along the way you'll need to keep any questions to yourself about how a guy who lives in a toy-store, hiding from the cops, can keep a relationship going while attending church meetings. Overall I liked the performances in "Roofman", better than its moment to moment story.